Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the right honourable Evelyn John St. Loe Strachey, Member for Dundee, West, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right honourable Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Support Costs (Agreed Minute)

Dr. Bray: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the German Federal Republic is keeping up with its undertaking under the Support Costs Agreed Minute of 6th June, 1962, to purchase goods from

Great Britain; and what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to further the sale of British data processing equipment to the German Post Office under the agreed arrangements.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): Payments under the agreed Minute of 6th June, 1962, fell short by about D.M 190 million during the financial year l962–63 out of the total agreed of D.M.600 million. As part of the continuous consultation between the two Governments about the implementation of the Agreed Minute, my right horn. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will visit Bonn on 22nd and 23rd of July.
Her Majesty's Government are aware that British firms might be able to supply data processing equipment to the Federal German Post Office under the Agreed Minute. Her Majesty's Embassy in Bonn are giving all possible assistance to the firms concerned.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that the House will welcome this initiative by the Government in bringing pressure upon the German Government to honour their obligations in this respect? Will he note that this type of contract for data processing equipment will be particularly valuable to the industry of this country and that it is the kind of export which, frankly, we should prefer seeing go to Germany rather than military equipment?

Mr. Heath: I entirely agree with the hon. Member. I saw this machinery on display at the Hanover Fair—or, rather, one example of what it is possible to sell. I was accompanied by the Ambassador and those from the Embassy who are looking after commercial affairs. They are fully aware of the position.

Submarines

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals he has received from the West German Government regarding the building of German submarines exceeding the present limit imposed by Western European Union.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in consequence of the decision of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council that the German Federal Republic should construct submarines of a tonnage exceeding that at present permitted by the amended protocols to the Brussels Treaty, Her Majesty's Government have given an undertaking to support the necessary amendment of the Brussels Treaty protocols.

Mr. Heath: The restrictions on conventional armaments in the Revised Brussels Treaty, which govern the defence effort of the Federal German Republic, are open to review at any time in the light of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's developing requirements. On the basis of these requirements, a proposal to amend the Treaty to permit the construction of submarines of a tonnage above the present prescribed limit of 450 tons has been considered by the Council of Western European Union. Her Majesty's Government support the proposal, but no action has so far been taken to amend the Treaty in this way.

Mr. Allaun: Has not the head of the German Navy recently stated that that Navy plans to increase the size of its submarines to 700 tons, which is twice the original limit—which has since been lifted to 450 tons? Will the British Government oppose this idea both through N.A.T.O. and the W.E.U., since it is a proposal to increase Germany's armed might still further?

Mr. Heath: No. Sir. I stated in my original Answer that we support this proposal—

Mr. Allaun: Why?

Mr. Heath: —which is made necessary by the development of naval techniques in the years since the Treaty was signed. It is on the recommendation of SACEUR and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, all the German forces are under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Warbey: Can the Lord Privy Seal say when the N.A.T.O. Council agreed on this increase in the tonnage of German submarines; secondly, why that N.A.T.O. agreement was kept secret and, thirdly, whether the British Government voted for the agreement in the N.A.T.O. Council? If they did so vote, are not their hands tied, and is not the W.E.U. merely a rubber stamp for N.A.T.O?

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. The recommendation was by SACEUR, and it is his responsibility to give his view to the Western European Union about the defensive requirements of N.A.T.O. He informed the W.E.U. last year of his view.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE (RECOMMENDATION)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Lord Privy Seal what action Her Majesty's Government are taking towards implementing Recommendation 365 of 1963 of the Council of Europe dealing with the preservation of ancient buildings.

The Minister of State, Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, without having come to any conclusion, have referred this recommendation to the Council for Cultural Co-operation for its opinion. In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government have not yet taken action towards implementing the recommendation.

Mr. Ridley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a most important recommendation and is one in which European co-operation is manifestly possible and which is unlikely to be vetoed by General de Gaulle? Will he therefore do all that he can to make sure that some action is taken on this important recommendation?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly agree that the recommendation requires very careful study. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the technical and financial


problems involved in the proposal are complicated and will require detailed study, but I agree with him that the recommendation is certainly important enough to warrant that detailed study.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTI-SLAVERY CONVENTIONS

Mr. Barnett: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will instruct the British representative in the General Assembly of the United Nations at its next session to seek there the full implementation of the anti-slavery conventions of 1926 and 1956.

Mr. P. Thomas: These conventions do not include provisions for full implementation and enforcement. It remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government, however, that States which have not yet done so should be encouraged to accede to the slavery conventions.

Mr. Barnett: Is the hon. Member aware of the widespread international concern on this subject and on the increase in slave traffic and slavery in the last few years? Will he and his right hon. Friend make some definite proposal in the United Nations, where this concern has been increasing? I am sure he will agree that the record of this country on this subject is unparalleled, and I think that our initiative here would be well received.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said and accept that there is widespread concern. We took an initiative at the current session of E.C.O.S.O.C. where we made a proposal that the Secretary-General should appoint a special rapporteur with the task of preparing a comprehensive and up-to-date statement of the extent to which slavery still exists in the world today. This was accepted.

Mr. W. Yates: In view of the close association between the Government and the Sheik of Muscat, will my hon. Friend try to prevail on that Government to allow such representatives as this Commission would like to send to enter the territory to examine the situation of slavery there?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND SOUTH EAST ASIA (B.B.C. BROADCASTS)

Dr. Bray: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the duration of British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts in Chinese to China and South East Asia; what it will be on completion of the authorised expansion of this service; and what are the weekly hours of British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts per hundred million of population in China as compared with the rest of the world.

Mr. P. Thomas: British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts to China and South East Asia amount at present to three and a half hours weekly in Mandarin and one and three-quarter hours weekly in Cantonese, making a total of five and a quarter hours in the Chinese languages. There is at present no authorised plan for the expansion of these services, but Chinese is one of the languages likely to benefit when the current scheme for improving British Broadcasting Corporation relay facilities in South East Asia has been completed. The British Broadcasting Corporation now provide forty-five minutes of broadcasting per hundred million of population in China compared with roughly nineteen hours per hundred million in foreign languages to the rest of the world.

Dr. Bray: Does the Minister note the gross disproportion in coverage between that of China and that of the rest of the world, by a factor of more than 20 to 1? Is there not a very strong case, particularly in view of the independence of Mayasia and the growing importance of China, for a very large increase in the broadcasting hours to China?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need for more broadcasts in Chinese, and this we have very much in mind. The difficulty is that it is very largely a question of technical facilities, and plans are under discussion for the increased use of existing facilities and for the provision of new facilities for the improvement of our broadcasting coverage in South East Asia.

Sir G. Nicholson: What hours are most favourable for broadcasts to China?

Mr. Thomas: I could not answer that without notice.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no one can visit a Communist country nowadays without being aware of the immense importance of these B.B.C. broadcasts? Why have we now lost a place in the quantity of our output, first to the Americans, then to the Russians, then to the Chinese, then to the group of satellite countries, and shortly, we believe, to Egypt? Why do not the Government make a general expansion of these very valuable overseas broadcasts?

Mr. Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are making an expansion of these broadcasts, which I agree with him are valuable. It is worth remembering that we are here making a contribution to the total free world effort of broadcasting to China. We are only one of several Western nations in the field with broadcasts in the Chinese language.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELAND (TRAWLER "MILWOOD")

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will inform the Icelandic Government that the Aberdeen owners of the trawler "Milwood", now detained in Reykjavik, have offered a bank guarantee to cover the amount of any penalty which may eventually be imposed by the Icelandic authorities on the owners as a consideration for the release of the trawler by the Government of Iceland and her return to her owners in Aberdeen.

Mr. Heath: The representatives in Reykjavik of the "Milwood's" owners have already put the offer of a guarantee to the Icelandic authorities on several occasions.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Lord Privy Seal realise that a great injustice is being done by the failure of the British Government to draw the attention of the Icelandic Government to the difference between the two cases—first, the case against the owners of the "Milwood", and, secondly, the case in a quite different court against the captain? Will the Lord Privy Seal draw the attention of the Icelandic Government to the difference between the two cases and the fact that the case against the owners of the "Milwood" can be heard and determined separately without detaining the ship in Reykjavik?

Mr. Heath: The Icelandic Supreme Court ruled on 26th June that the trawler might be held pending the trial of Skipper Smith on 5th September. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, this is an unusual case which has been complicated by the fact that Skipper Smith did not return with his ship.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECURITY SERVICES (BOOKS AND ARTICLES)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Lord Privy Seal what criteria he applies when approving for publication books and articles, which are in part fact and in part fiction, dealing with the work of the security services, which have been submitted to his Department for examination, details of which matters have been sent to him by the honourable Member for Tynemouth.

Mr. Heath: The criteria are whether material derived from official sources is involved and, if so, whether publication, assuming that this is in advance of the date provided for in the Public Records Act, 1958, would in our view be likely to damage the national interest.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public cannot possibly distinguish between what is truth and what is fiction in a book which is based partly on fiction and partly on truth? Why because the law is an ass should the Foreign Office be described in a book of this kind as being an ass, too? Is it not time that the Foreign Office brought itself up to date and modernised itself? Why should the Foreign Office agree to the publication of a book which is such a bad advertisement for the Foreign Office? For goodness sake, could not the Foreign Office get on with some modernisation?

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend knows the difficulties about decisions in individual cases, because she has been in correspondence with me about a number of them. Of course, I am prepared, and my noble Friend is prepared, to consider any individual book which she refers to us, but each case must be decided on its merits. At the same time, I think that it is important to know what the technical position is: it is that this matter is governed by the Public Records Act, 1958,and that when authors send manuscripts


what they are really asking for is an assurance that they would be immune from prosecution for violating the Official Secrets Act. Therefore, what they are asking for is a special dispensation. The decision on publication always rests with themselves. If that dispensation is denied, they are not being denied any right. They are being asked for a particular service. We must judge these cases on the criteria I have mentioned.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Has the Lord Privy Seal read the dispatch from The Times Washington correspondent dealing with security matters in which it is said that the impression given about Britain in the minds of people over there is one of baffled confusion? Does not the matter raised by the hon. Member for Tynemouth. (Dame Irene Ward) exemplify the type of concern where he could take some action which would dispel the confusion existing?

Mr. Heath: I certainly saw the dispatch from Washington. It did not, in fact, refer to a matter of this kind. As I have said, each individual manuscript must be judged on its merits.

Dame Irene Ward: My right hon. Friend is on the wrong book.

Mr. Heath: It is not for me to judge the merits of the book.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL

Mr. Skeet: asked the Lord Privy Seal what instructions he has given to his representative at the United Nations on the subject of free and unimpeded passage through the Suez Canal by the vessels of all nations; and what steps he is taking in the United Nations with a view to ensuring that the United Arab Republic, as owners and operators of the canal, comply with the Security Council's resolutions thereon.

Mr. Heath: There has been no recent occasion for instructions on this subject to be sent to our Permanent Representative in New York. Our views have been frequently expressed in the past and they are well known to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Mr. Skeet: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that in December last a Swedish vessel with a cargo of silver coin destined

for an Italian port and to British consignees was stopped and the silver confiscated? Is it not high time that vessels were allowed by the U.A.R. to pass through the Canal irrespective of their country of origin and destination, and should not more positive statements be made by us in the United Nations to try to organise this?

Mr. Heath: At the time of this incident I made a statement to the House of Commons which was absolutely clear, and our views have also been made plain to the U.A.R. authorities. This matter has now been referred to the U.A.R. Prize Court. The insurers are in close touch with the Foreign Office and are being given all possible assistance. The seizure of the coins did not interfere with the passage through the Canal of the ship concerned.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Lord Privy Seal represent to the Government of the U.A.R. that it is a pity to spoil their splendid record on improving the Canal and developing the traffic by failing to carry out the resolutions of the United Nations, to whom they owe so much?

Mr. Heath: The Government of the U.A.R. knew that we support the Security Council's resolutions, in particular that of 1st September, 1951, and the six principles embodied in the resolution of 13th October, 1956.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS CHARTER (CHAPTER VII)

Mr. Longden: asked the Lord Privy Seal what further efforts have now been made to negotiate with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the special agreements which are necessary before the provisions of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter can operate, bearing in mind that such agreements could only operate if the permanent members of the Security Council were unanimously in favour of their so doing; and what further response there has been from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. P. Thomas: None, Sir. The Soviet Union is fully aware of its power of veto in the Security Council. There is no reason to suppose that a reminder of that power would cause the Soviet


Union to withdraw its opposition to the conclusion of agreements under Article 43 of the United Nations Charter.

Mr. Longden: Does my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal realise that the last time I asked this Question he said that he would give further consideration to this aspect of it? Do not Her Majesty's Government think that, if the United Nations are to engage in further peace-keeping operations of this kind, it would be easier for them to have the machinery provided by the Charter at their disposal? Surely it would be worth while to make another effort?

Mr. Thomas: The question of the establishment of such a force in the context of disarmament is due to be discussed in the negotiations at Geneva. We consider that the negotiations in Geneva constitute the best hope for securing the necessary measure of international agreement to set up an international peace-keeping force.

Mr. Longden: It is not a question of establishing a force. It is a question of bringing into operation the sanctions laid down in Chapter VII of the Charter which have been inoperative for eighteen years owing to the refusal of the Russians to enter into the special agreements. Is no further effort to be made to get them to do so?

Mr. Thomas: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, and I appreciate that my right hon. Friend said that he would give further consideration to the aspect my hon. Friend raised in a previous Question. Consideration has been given, but we do not think that reminding the Soviet Union of her powers of veto will have the effect my hon. Friend desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R. (TSARIST DEBTS)

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Lord Privy Seal when the Soviet Government last referred to the Tsarist debts in discussions with Her Majesty's Government; whether Her Majesty's Government still consider that these debts must be dealt with separately from the Baltic claims; and what measures Her Majesty's Government intends to take to solve the problems of the Tsarist debts and of the distribution of such assets as are held

against them by Baring Bros, and other banks.

Mr. P. Thomas: There has been no discussion of Tsarist claims with the Soviet Government since 1959. It was then agreed that the claims arising as a result of the October Revolution should be left in abeyance pending a settlement of the post-1939 claims. Her Majesty's Government reserved their position as far as the older claims are concerned. In view of this agreement, it would be inappropriate at the present stage for us to take unilateral action as regards Tsarist assets held in this country.

Sir W. Teeling: Since the people who are owed this money are getting older all the time and since it is becoming more difficult to trace some of the original claimants, does my hon. Friend not think that it is time, after four years, that we should get together on all these different debts and try to make one big final agreement with the Russians, who at the moment look as though they might be willing to agree?

Mr. Thomas: As my hon. Friend knows, this matter has been raised with the Soviet Union on numerous occasions between 1917 and 1959 and they have not been prepared to discuss it. At the moment we are negotiating for the claims after 1939, and I think that it would be wise now to concentrate on those.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if there is not a counter claim against this country for the £100 million that was spent, unauthorised by this House, in financing the counter revolutionary generals? Has not that to be taken into consideration, too?

Mr. Thomas: The Soviet Union have so far not formulated any claim.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS PERMANENT PEACE FORCE

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the establishment of a United Nations Permanent Peace Force and a world authority in Stage I of a disarmament treaty.

Mr. P. Thomas: The policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the


establishment of peacekeeping forces is in accordance with the proposals in the United States outline disarmament treaty, with whose preparation we were closely associated. These proposals are that preliminary arrangements for such a force should be made in Stage I, and that it should be established and expanded in Stages II and III.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAOS

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, following the deterioration in the Laos situation, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose the reconvening of the Geneva Conference.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir.

Mr. Henderson: Since Communist China appears to be having a great deal to do with the unsatisfactory situation that exists in Laos at the moment, would it not be advantageous if the Geneva Conference were reassembled and Communist China invited to take her place at the conference table again and face up to the responsibilities she accepted when the Agreements were made at Geneva?

Mr. Heath: There is a later Question on the Order Paper about the general situation. In our judgment, machinery exists by which the Geneva Agreements can be implemented. Our task now must be to make this machinery work and not to resort to another conference in order to try to make a fresh settlement.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Lord Privy Seal what further progress has been made in implementing the Geneva Agreements on Laos.

Mr. Heath: Latest reports give some hope that political discussions will be renewed between the Prime Minister of Laos and the Pathet Lao leaders. The military situation is meanwhile more or less static.

Mr. Cronin: Will the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind the fact that the Government's present policy of putting pressure on the Soviet Union in this matter is now serving very little purpose since the Soviet Union has only a limited influence now in this part of the world? Will he also con-

sider the suggestion of putting on a more permanen; basis the International Control Commission in the Plain of Jars and giving more definite help to Prince Souvanna Phouma's Government?

Mr. Heath: The Soviet Foreign Minister is co-Chairman of the Geneva Settlement, and it is right that my noble Friend should remain in close communication with him about this problem. Regarding the work of the International Control Commisison, we have always desired to see it carry out its duties under the Geneva Settlement, and that is why when the co-Chairmen did not agree we ourselves circulated the reports of the Commission which the Commission sent to us. As to supporting the Prime Minister of Laos, that must depend on the point of view of the Laotian Government and the Prime Minister of Laos himself.

Mr. Cronin: While it is obvious that everything must take place in close co operation with the Soviet co-Chairman, are not the British Government putting undue reliance on this method of dealing with the situation?

Mr. Heath: I do not think that undue reliance is being placed on this method. It is the established machinery in the settlement, and it is right that it should be used.

Mr. A. Henderson: Does the Lord Privy Seal consider that the Commission is functioning?

Mr. Heath: Yes, certainly, but not fully, because it is not being allowed into the areas held by the Pathet Lao. The Commisison has produced three reports, which we have circulated to the members of the conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (FRONTIERS)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Lord Privy Seal what consultations have taken place with France and the United States of America, as signatories of the 1951 Pact, as a prelude to making a joint declaration to the Government of the United Arab Republic that action will be taken to guarantee the frontiers and preserve the independence of all countries in the Middle East which are threatened with aggression from without or subversion from within.

Mr. Heath: None, Sir. As regards action to preserve peace and stability in the Middle East, I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 14th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden).

Mr. Johnson: In view of that reply to which my right hon. Friend refers, would it not be desirable to get a similar endorsement from France in regard to this matter? Would it not also be desirable to make it clear that we are prepared to act as well as talk under the circumstances envisaged in my Question?

Mr. Heath: If my hon. Friend consults the reply which the Prime Minister gave, he will see that my right hon. Friend said that it was difficult to foresee the exact action one could take in any particular circumstances in the future, but that we would prefer the United Nations to be primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace in the area. The United States President made a statement just before that on similar lines, but it must be a matter for the French Government to express their own point of view.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Do we still regard the Tripartite Agreement as being in force?

Mr. Heath: The views expressed by the Prime Minister in answer to the Question to which I have referred clearly set out the views of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mayhew: Were we fully consulted before the American declaration was made and to which, I gather, we have given assent?

Mr. Heath: We are always in the closest consultation with the United States Administration.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (MOSCOW VISIT)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the purpose of the proposed official visit to Moscow of the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Heath: The Lord President of the Council and Mr. Harriman begin their talks with Soviet representatives in

Moscow today. I know that the whole House will wish them success.
On the purpose of the visit, I would refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 3rd July and to the Answers which he gave to Questions on 9th and 11th July.

Mr. Cronin: While, obviously, hon. Members on both sides of the House wish the Lord President the greatest possible success on this occasion and while any more specific supplementary question would be inappropriate today, could the Lord Privy Seal simply indicate that the Government are aware that this is a unique psychological opportunity to achieve an agreement? Could the right hon. Gentleman also assure the House that the Lord President is in a flexible situation from the point of view of the negotiations?

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister explained our attitude towards this matter. We want Mr. Khrushchev to know exactly what the position is and we want to achieve an agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORT APPLICATION (ROBERT MACDONALD)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will explain the circumstances in which the application for a passport for Robert Macdonald of 24, Dundee Road, Wyke Regis, Weymouth, was kept for some weeks in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. P. Thomas: There was good reason to believe that the signature on Mr. Macdonald's application form purporting to be that of his father was not authentic. The case was therefore referred in the normal way to the local police authorities for enquiry and subsequently, on receipt of the police report, to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether proceedings should be instituted against the applicant under Section36 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925. Mr. Macdonald has since been interviewed and the passport issued to him.

Mr. Barnett: Will the hon. Gentleman look at this whole business more carefully? Is he aware that as far as I can make out there was no question of this


young man attempting to simulate his father's signature? I understand that after answering the questions correctly he wrote his own signature, crossed it out and then wrote his father's? The father was written to and asked to confirm that his consent had been given and immediately and promptly gave it. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that passing this case to the Director of Public Prosecutions without informing the lad or his father was ham-fisted, to say the least, and had consequences which prevented the boy from going on a trip which he was hoping to go on?

Mr. Thomas: I cannot agree with the hon. Member. This was a clear case of a young man forging another signature. It was in due course passed to the police for inquiries to be made. The police took information from him and, therefore, that information then had to go to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether a prosecution should be instituted. The Director considered this matter but decided that a severe caution to the boy was appropriate. Therefore, he was not prosecuted and we then gave him a passport.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now publish an account of the scientific and other factors which determine the number of on-site inspections thought necessary by Her Majesty's Government as part of a test ban agreement.

Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 29th May.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 29th May he told me that the data were not readily presented in the form of a White Paper and that the inference which I drew from that—the inference which anyone would have drawn—was that they were present able in some other form? This is what I am now seeking; that the data should be presented in a form which the right hon. Gentleman may decide.

Mr. Heath: I do not think that that was a justifiable inference from my reply. I explained that there were a number of reasons why this information could not readily be published. I

explained that other factors came into it as well as the scientific data which is available in trying to reach a test ban agreement. As we are now negotiating a test ban agreement, it might be best if we leave the matter there and see what happens.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (NORTHERN FRONTIER DISTRICT)

Mr. Wall: asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent communications he has had with the Government of the Somali Republic about the Somali Region of Kenya and about the resumption of diplomatic relations between Great Britain and the Republic.

Mr. P. Thomas: A Note from the Somali Government about the Northern Frontier District of Kenya has been received by Her Majesty's Government through the Protecting Power, and is under consideration. There has been no communication about the resumption of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and the Somali Republic.

Mr. Wall: While it is to be hoped that this problem may be solved within the context of the East African Federation, would not my hon. Friend agree that the British Government have a special responsibility, still being the sovereign Power, and also because a large majority of the inhabitants have indicated their wish to join the Somali Republic?

Mr. Thomas: We certainly agree that we have a responsibility up to the time of independence. We hope that agreement will be reached between all parties concerned before the date set for independence.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Will Her Majesty's Government make clear to the Government of Kenya how undesirable it is to have in the area of any country a "Sudetenland" capable of giving trouble in the future?

Mr. Thomas: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE (MEAT TRADE)

Mr. Burden: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware of the proposal of


the Argentine Government to make discriminatory payments to Argentine meat producers, which would prejudice the position of British companies operating in the Argentine; and if he will make representations to the Argentine Government to prevent this proposal being carried out.

Mr. P. Thomas: I am aware that the Argentine Government propose to allow Argentine concerns access to working capital from a fund to which both Argentine and foreign companies in the meat trade have to contribute. British companies would suffer if this proposal were put into effect. Representations have been made to the Argentine Government pointing out the discriminatory nature of their proposal and expressing our concern.

Mr. Burden: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it should be made abundantly clear to the Argentine Government that any such discrimination against British companies operating in the Argentine can only result in Argentine meat producers and meat product companies being seriously prejudiced in United Kingdom markets today; and that they cannot expect to enjoy the freedom they have had in the past if they so discriminate against British companies operating in the Argentine?

Mr. Thomas: I hope that the representations already made will lead to the desired result.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that this Argentine Government is the same Government to which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has, as a result of the recent agreement, handed to the Argentine Government the right to allocate meat to British firms in this country as the Argentine Government wish? Will my hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture as to whether it is not much better that the distribution of meat in this country should be done in this country and not done by the Argentine Government?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. I was not aware of that, but I will accept it from my hon. Friend and will certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (POLITICAL TRIALS)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received from British trade unions asking for observers from the British Embassy in Madrid to attend political trials in Spain, as was previously done; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. P. Thomas: A number of trade union branches have raised this matter with my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. They have been referred to my Answer to the hon. Gentleman on 8th April.

Mr. Allaun: Why are the British Government less concerned than the American Government about seeing what goes on at these trials, particularly as the presence of foreign observers is considered helpful to justice?

Mr. Thomas: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not less concerned than the Americans to find out what goes on at these trials, but we find that because the Press are admitted to the trials we have full information about what goes on. As to whether our presence there could influence the course of justice, I would suggest that it would be improper for us to send an observer to the trial of a citizen of a foreign country with that object. We have no standing to intervene in the judicial processes in another country where no British interests are directly involved.

Mr. Bellenger: While it may be regrettable that political trials should take place anywhere, can we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal will not discriminate in his representations of the nature indicated in the Question between countries either of the East or of the West?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Lord Privy Seal which Commonwealth countries have been consulted on the recent negotiations he has had with members of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Heath: There have been no recent negotiations with members of the European Economic Community other than


those in connection with the European Economic Community's proposal for the suspension of tariffs on tea and tropical hardwoods. The fullest contact has been maintained with those Commonwealth countries concerned at all stages of these negotiations.

Mr. Shinwell: Having failed to persuade certain elements in the E.E.C. to accept the United Kingdom as a member of the Community, is the right hon. Gentleman now trying to get in by the back door? As the right hon. Gentleman is obviously a very intelligent person, though it is not always apparent, why does he not abandon this project for the time being?

Mr. Heath: I was prevented by a certain element, and there is no question of going in by the back door. These arrangements were first negotiated in Brussels and, at the request of Commonwealth countries, we had to return to the Community with the request that the tariffs on tea—which particularly affects India, Pakistan and Ceylon—and hardwoods—which affect, particularly, Nigeria and Tanganyika—should be removed. Therefore, it was obviously right that we should negotiate with the Community to that effect, and I am glad that the negotiation has been successful.

Mr. Shinwell: In that case, would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to include in the Official Report the conclusions reached as a result of the contacts?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. I will certainly report them to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (NA.T.O. BASE)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord Privy Seal what consideration is being given to using Malta as a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation base.

Mr. Heath: The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation already enjoys military facilities in Malta, which is the location of the Headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief, Armed Forces, Mediterranean.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I recently had the oppor-

tunity of confirming that both the major parties in Malta are just as vigorously opposed to the present fortress economy established by the British as they would be to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation creating another economy of that type? In view of the fact that if N.A.T.O. wants a base for military or nuclear purposes there is a N.A.T.O. country to the north of Malta with a good many totally uninhabited islands, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that any one of these would be a better place than Malta?

Mr. Heath: The plain fact is that there is a N.A.T.O. base in Malta at this moment, and what is also, I would have thought, quire clear is that the Maltese Administration welcomes the use of Malta by British forces because of the revenue that this brings to the island. Indeed, whenever there has been a proposal, because of reductions in defence expenditure, to reduce the base in Malta, it has always been received with great opposition by those in question.

Mr. Rankin: While Malta may have welcomed the British while the troops were there, now that the troops are being withdrawn and nothing apparently is taking their place from Britain, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the welcome is not so strong?

Mr. Heath: That is not to say nothing is taking their place, but that is a matter for the Colonial Secretary. The whole House knows what the Government have done to help Malta in this situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — YEMEN OPERATIONS (PROSCRIBED WEAPONS)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that Egypt, despite international engagements to the contrary, has used poison gas against Yemeni non-combatants; what action is being taken through the United Nations or other channels; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take the initiative in arranging for medical and other aid to be provided to the victims.

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has through the United Nations of the use of mustard or poison gas in the recent operations in the Yemen; by whom it was used; and what steps are being taken by the United


Nations to bring medicinal relief to the victims and to put an end to such activities.

Mr. W. Yates: asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) what reports he has received from Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations concerning the use by United Arab Republic forces in North Yemen of weapons proscribed by the United Nations and the International Geneva Convention in an area now under United Nations supervision; and if he will make a statement
(2) what investigations the United Nations have now made into the use of weapons proscribed by the United Nations and the International Geneva Convention in North Yemen, an area at present under United Nations supervision.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will cause to be raised in the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation the need for a committee to be set up to inquire into the use of toxic gas on villages of the Yemen and for the necessary steps to be taken to prevent a repetition of these attacks.

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has now received from the United Nations about the use of any type of gas in the Yemen by Egyptian forces; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he now has had from the United Nations about the use of poison gas in an attack on a village in the Yemen.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he has taken in the United Nations to secure an investigation by the United Nations into allegations that United Arab Republic forces in the Yemen have used poison gases and napalm bombs against the people of the Yemen.

Mr. Heath: On 9th July we drew the attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to a circumstantial account in the Daily Telegraph on 8th July of the use of some type of gas bomb by United Arab Republic forces in the Yemen. U Thant had already instructed the United Nations Yemen Observation Mission to investigate such accounts, but

so far as I am aware their report has not yet been received.
There is also a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the area with instructions to report on the needs of the wounded. Our Ambassador in Cairo has told the Egyptian Government of the extreme seriousness with which Her Majesty's Government would regard such reports if found to be true.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and ask him whether it is not important that the Foreign Office, as well as an English newspaper, should have prompt information about these terrible events? Is not this one more reason why there should still be a British Chargé ďAffaires with the Iman's Government? May we be assured that there will be the most vigorous international action on the part of Her Majesty's Government so that people do not get the idea that what the League of Nations condemned in Mussolini is condoned in Nasser?

Mr. Heath: As I explained to the House, we think it better to use the channel of communication with the Iman's representative in London for our information. The best thing surely in the circumstances is that the United Nations, which has observers on the spot, should report as soon as possible and as fully as possible on this incident. I think that the House would agree that we have taken all possible action in these circumstances.

Sir J. Lucas: If the people concerned get away with it and they cheat, does it not mean that in any future war the whole thing will spread and be just as bad as a nuclear war?

Mr. Heath: We ourselves have signed the Geneva Convention on this, which explains our point of view.

Mr. W. Yates: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Department of the United States Secretary of State has also sent observers there and they have confirmed that these weapons have not been used at all? Is he aware that the report in the Daily Telegraph does not mention gas; it mentions poison gas? Why is it that only the Daily Telegraph has this report?

Hon. Members: A scoop.

Mr. Heath: Neither of these questions affects the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and I certainly cannot answer them.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Has my right hon. Friend any information direct to the Foreign Office apart from the report in the Daily Telegraph? Independently of that, will he press the United Nations for a very early report on this matter and not allow the thing to get gradually lost in the mist of time?

Mr. Heath: I understand that the United Nations Secretary-General wishes to have an early report about it because of his concern about the matter. We have received certain information and we shall make it available to the United Nations if required.

Mr. Thorpe: While agreeing that we must reserve judgment until we have received the United Nations report and that we must not bandy charges, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say when we are likely to receive that report?

Mr. Heath: We have been unable to find that out. I made inquiries before coming to the House as to when the report would be received, but we have no knowledge of it yet.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Egyptian Government have denied the allegations but that it is clearly in their interests as well as those of the people of the Yemen that the facts should be clearly established by an impartial authority? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, in addition to pressing for an early report by the United Nations, also inform the House fully of information he receives as soon as he gets it?

Mr. Heath: I understand that the U.A.R. has stated that these were napalm bombs and not gas bombs. I will see that the House has the earliest opportunity of hearing of the report we receive.

Sir T. Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the United Nations has all the transport required for the investigation, including aircraft and possibly helicopters, and has the advice of experts, including a medical team?

Mr. Heath: I understand that the Secretary-General is satisfied that the observer team can carry out this investigation. If they required any further facilities we would certainly urge that they should receive them.

Mr. Burden: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that every effort will be made to ensure that this report will be received as soon as possible and that if it is confirmed—as we hope it will not—that these diabolical weapons have been used by Egypt every effort will be made to ensure that the United Nations takes the strongest possible action?

Mr. Speaker: The latter part would appear to be on a hypothetical basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE (EX-OFFICIAL)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Lord Privy Seal on how many occasions in the last 10 years the Foreign Office has asked British newspapers to find employment for ex-officials of that Department.

Mr. Heath: Full records are not kept of approaches made by the Foreign Office to outside employers on behalf of former employees. But the Foreign Office always tries to help former members of the Service, who have retired or resigned, to find jobs for which they appear to be suitably qualified.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not most unusual for the Foreign Office to seek employment for an ex-official of the Department who has beer at one time or another under suspicion, to put it no higher than that? Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House who was the Foreign Office official who approached the Observer in order to try to obtain employment for Mr. Philby?

Mr. Heath: I dealt last week with the case which the right hon. Gentleman is raising. As for the general matters to which his Question refers, I should have thought that it was not unusual but only the work of any good employer to try to help people in those circumstances.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, if we are to have this question perpetually from the other side of the House, he could please


inform me on whose authority Burgess became established in the Foreign Office at the time of the Labour Government?

Mr. Speaker: That question is again hypothetical.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. It is not hypothetical at all.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to differ from the hon. Lady, as at all times, but a proposition beginning, "If we are to have this question—"appears to me to be hypothetical.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has just informed the House that he dealt with one aspect of my Question last week, but he did not tell the House who was the Foreign Office official who approached the Observer to obtain employment for Mr. Philby. Can we now be informed?

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to tell the House of Commons the name of a particular official dealing with matters in the Foreign Office. This was dealt with through the usual channels.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT DECADE

Mr. Millan: asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals have been submitted by the British representatives at the current meeting of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in connection with the United Nations Development Decade.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals are being submitted by Her Majesty's Government at the current conference of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in Geneva in order to promote the objectives of the United Nations Development Decade.

Mr. P. Thomas: None, Sir. The two reports on the Decade which the Secretary-General has prepared in consultation with member Governments contain comprehensive proposals covering the whole field of development. What is needed now is a careful assessment of those proposals and action to implement them as speedily and as effectively as practicable.

Mr. Millan: Would the hon. Gentleman say what proposals Her Majesty's Government have for implementing these proposals of the Secretary-General? Is it not a fact that since the General Assembly passed a resolution in 1961 establishing the United Nations Development Decade virtually nothing had been done of practical consequence?

Mr. Thomas: I do not agree with that at all. I suggest that the hon. Member reads the reports of the Secretary-General. At the moment our delegation at the Economic and Social Council are dealing with these matters. Their main objective will be to ensure that the considerable financial, material and human resources which are being made available through the United Nations are being used in the most efficient and effective way possible to help developing countries.

Mr. Prentice: How far do these reports deal with the need to expand in 1964 the programme of technical assistance and the work of the Special Fund, which are falling behind the objectives originally set out in the Development Decade? If these efforts are falling behind, will Her Majesty's Government agree to making a greater contribution to these programmes along with other countries?

Mr. Thomas: The United Kingdom contribution for 1963 to the two United Nations voluntary funds, the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and the Special Fund, will increase by 25 per cent. to a total of 10 million dollars. We are the largest contributor after the United States.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is not ten million dollars a ludicrously small sum for a project which is immensely in the interest of the British Commonwealth?

Mr. Thomas: This is only part of the assistance which we give to underdeveloped countries, which is considerable.

Mr. W. Yates: Nevertheless, will Her Majesty's Government be good enough to review how much they give to assist the United Nations in this programme?

Mr. Thomas: The matter comes up for review in the autumn.

Oral Answers to Questions — ESPIONAGE

Mr. G. Craddock: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will cause to be raised in the Security Council, as a threat to world peace, the activities of espionage agents throughout the world, with a view to establishing an international convention to outlaw their activities.

Mr. Heath: No. Sir.

Mr. Craddock: Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister's reply is no longer and gives no more information than was given in 1956, in view of the fact that the major Powers in U.N.O. conduct espionage on a grand scale which harms international relationships, why cannot action be taken at the Security Council at least to try to get this matter discussed?

Mr. Heath: I think the main reason is because of the obvious difficulty of enforcing such an agreement.

Mr. John Hall: Would my right hon. Friend not consider this matter? Would it not have the effect of stimulating the secret service to become really secret?

Mr. Thorpe: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is an essential part of international diplomacy, and what the House would really wish would be to see it changed so that we caught more of other people's agents and they caught fewer of ours?

Mr. Heath: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has adequate information on which to make a judgment on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIAN GULF STATES

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Lord Privy Seal, for how long Her Majesty's Government propose to maintain British jurisdiction in certain States in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Heath: I cannot say. But Her Majesty's Government look forward to the time when the development of satisfactory legal and judicial systems in the Persian Gulf States will justify the relinquishment of British jurisdiction, as it has already been relinquished in Kuwait.

Mr. Mayhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we are more likely to be able to maintain our interest in the Gulf, which is perfectly legitimate and of great value to the people there, if we bring our relationships with those States a little more up to date, and if we do it a little more quickly than we are doing now? What reason is there for maintaining British jurisdiction in all these States when other judicial processes are available there?

Mr. Heath: We are most anxious that all the arrangements which we have with the Gulf States should be up to date, and indeed we give the lead in this respect. The reason for maintaining our jurisdiction is that the rulers themselves are still in the process of improving and establishing their jurisdiction. We will give them every assistance in doing that, and as soon as it is completed we will be ready to relinquish our jurisdiction.

Mr. Stonehouse: What steps are the Government taking to ensure the administration of these States? Are we taking steps to ensure that the slave trade in Muscat and Oman is kept down?

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend has just answered a Question about that. We have no responsibility for the internal affairs of these States. Our responsibility is for their external protection.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEES (MEETINGS)

Miss Vickers: asked the Lord Privy Seal, whether he is aware that the Secretary General of the United Nations has recommended that the meetings of the United Nations Committees on Population, Statistical, Human Rights, and the Social Commission and Status of Women Commission shall not take place in 1964; and what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. P. Thomas: The answer to the first part of the Question is, Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government intend to give the Secretary-General's recommendation their full support.

Miss Vickers: Does not my hon. Friend think this is a very retrograde step? Does he not think it is a pity that some of these committees should not be


amalgamated if there is going to be too much work to have them individually staffed? If they are going to miss one year, can we be certain that they will start again in 1965?

Mr. Thomas: I would not agree that this is a retrograde step. There are part of wider proposals which were put forward by the Secretary-General with the object of relieving the excessive burden placed on the Secretariat by the increasingly congested programme of conferences and meetings on economic and social matters.

Miss Vickers: Will my hon. Friend see that we take the matter up to ensure that these committees do meet in 1965?

Mr. Thomas: Certainly I will take that matter up. So far as the present proposals are concerned, we have already announced that we will give the Secretary-General our full support.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will draw the attention of the Security Council, under Article 34 of the Charter, to the latest action of the United States of America against Cuba under the United States Trading With the Enemy Act, together with the United States boycott, violations of Cuban air-space and other acts contrary to international law and the obligations of the United Nations Charter, as a threat to peace.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that the Government of the United States of America has instituted blocking controls with respect to Cuba, in order to contribute more effectively to her economic isolation; and whether he will take the steps necessary to bring this situation to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly under Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter of the United Nations as a threat to peace.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government will bring to the attention of the Security Council or of a special meeting of the General Assembly the situation created by the action of the United States of America in imposing a total economic blockade of Cuba and of the assets of Cuban nationals loyal to the Government of Cuba, as a situation which might lead

to international friction under the terms of Article 34.

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government are aware of the action taken by the United States Government. They do not consider it constitutes any threat to peace.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that to treat Cuba as an enemy to be boycotted and threatened with aggression constitutes a threat to peace? Will he dispel the growing impression that Her Majesty's Government treat the Charter as a scrap of paper in their subservience to American aggression and bullying?

Mr. Heath: Certainly not. This action was taken as part of the arrangements requested by the Organisation of American States.

Mr. Rankin: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is just as bloody-minded to try to destroy a people by economic means as it is by the military method? We ourselves have said so when we were subjected to it. In view of the fact that the wise men are now gathering in the East to try to come to a composition on the use of the military method, would not the right hon. Gentleman urge similar tolerance amongst our friends in the West?

Mr. Heath: This is a matter for the United States Administration.

Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Security Council authorised the Organisation of American States to take economic sanction against Cuba? Secondly, is this not in any case an act of incredible political folly at a time when Mr. Khrushchev is having very delicate negotiations with both his Eastern and Western friends?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would refer this matter to the Security Council. I have given the reason why we are not prepared to do that.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: If we are talking about breaking the Charter, can my right hon. Friend inform the House how often the Soviet Union has used the veto compared with America or this country?

Mr. Heath: If my hon. Friend will give me notice I will tell him the exact number of times.

Mr. M. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is a good policy to


try to starve the Cubans into accepting the policy which the Americans desire?

Mr. Heath: This action which has been taken by the United States Government is the blocking of accounts inside the United States.

Mr. Rankin: No, it is not.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Does the Lord Privy Seal recall that when Stalin did this to Yugoslavia we protested in the strongest possible manner and took action to help Marshal Tito? Will he consult the Law Officers and see whether their opinion is that the action now taken is in accordance with the obligations of the Charter?

Mr. Heath: We have naturally considered this matter, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to take further legal advice, I will certainly consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Swingler: asked the-Lord Privy Seal if he will now propose to other Governments concerned the organisation of an embargo on arms supplies to the Middle East as a means of reducing tension and attempting to negotiate peace settlements.

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government endeavour to maintain a balance of arms in this area and to prevent an arms race from developing; moreover, Her Majesty's Government would consider with the greatest care any practicable scheme for promoting peace and stability in the area. But, so long as present tensions persist, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's proposal would produce useful results.

Mr. Swingler: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is necessary for some Government to take the initiative in this matter? How can one Government maintain a balance of arms supplies in the area? What would be beneficial to all concerned would be a stoppage of arms supplies completely and an end to competitive arms trafficking. Would not the right hon. Gentleman take an initiative with other Governments who supply arms to try to control the business and stop arms trafficking?

Mr. Heath: I said that we were endeavouring to maintain a balance of arms in this area. This we do by con-

sultation with other countries. We are already finding this a difficult thing to achieve. At the same time, I do not think there in any point in trying to take the initiative to stop all arms supplies to the area.

Mr. Mayhew: Would it not be possible at least to stop all nuclear supplies to the area? For example, is it proposed at Moscow to take a positive initiative to try to prevent nuclear weapons being given to Governments in the Middle East?

Mr. Heath: I have already defined the terms of the discussions at Moscow. So far as nuclear arms are concerned, it has been suggested that there are already nuclear arms in certain countries in the Middle East.

Mr. Swingler: Would the right hon. Gentleman not say that he will take the initiative in these discussions to propose an agreement at any rate, to ensure that no nuclear weapons are supplied to the countries of the Middle East? Would he not take that initiative?

Mr. Heath: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the present discussions in Moscow, their scope has already been defined. If he is referring to some fresh initiative on nuclear weapons, I have explained that we are endeavouring with other countries to maintain a balance and limit supplies going to the Middle East. At the same time, there are some indications that nuclear weapons may already be there.

Mr. Mayhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman be more explicit about this information of nuclear weapons having already arrived in the Middle East? On what does he base this?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give information on that particular point.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first two Resolutions proposed shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1963–64; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1963–64; NAVY ESTIMATES, 1963–64; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1963–64; AIR ESTIMATES, 1963–64; NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1961–62; ARMY EXPENDITURE 1961–62; AIR EXPENDITURE 1961–62

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1963–64

CLASS I

VOTE 3. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,679,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments and of the First Secretary of State, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Minister without Portfolio.—[£1,500,000 has been voted on account.]

CLASS VII

VOTE 2. OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR SCIENCE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £104,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Science.—[£50,000 has been voted on account.]

SCIENCE

3.33 p.m.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: Having caught your eye, Sir Robert, with such unusual facility, I feel tempted to ask the indulgence of the Committee as aback bencher who spent nearly eighteen years on the back benches and whose visit to the Front

Bench a few years ago was extremely brief. I also have a second reason for asking it, which is that I must declare not an interest in science, but an ignorance of science. On this subject, however, I feel more confidence in view not only of the unblemished humanities record of the Parliamentary Secretary, but of the Minister for Science as well, who is as pure a classicist as I was.
When thinking about this topic, I could not help reflecting that, at least, this is not the first time that the House of Commons has debated great subjects with little knowledge. I suppose that 600 years ago, the majority of Members of Parliament were as ignorant of the humanities as the majority of Members of Parliament are ignorant of science and mathematics today, and that the majority of Members who could read with difficulty and put their cross looked with a curious mixture of irritation and respect upon the half-dozen Clerks, who could read and actually had the unfair advantage of writing as well, regarding them as dangerous men—men who were useful but who were grudged their special techniques.
But then, I suppose, one could say that the modern State came when it became a necessary accomplishment for the administrator and the politician to know the humanities—first, classics and then, humanities generally. Now, we are moving from that epoch into a new epoch in which the administrator and the politician cannot do their jobs properly if they have knowledge only of the humanities. They must have science and mathematics as well.
To cope with the problems of the scientific revolution in which we live, we have to be numerate as well as literate. In this country, that is still a rarity and it is one of the reasons why we have great problems in our national revival. The truth is that today the managing director in the boardroom, the Permanent Under-Secretary in a Government Department, or the editor of a great newspaper are only too often not merely ignorant—that is forgivable in us all—but actively hostile to the scientific spirit; and it is this anti-scientific climate of public opinion which is causing desperation among our scientists and technologists.
I say straight away that I do not believe that the quality of British scientists and technologists has in any way been reduced. It must, however, be faced that if one goes among them, as I have done during the last three or four months, what strikes one first and foremost is the mood of desperation which one finds.
How do I know that? Because thousands of the finest of our scientists and engineers are now demonstrating their demoralisation in the most devastating way possible by leaving the country in droves.

Mr. John Rodgers: They always did.

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman says that they always did. I will give him a few facts to indicate that the present flight of scientists to the United States of America is unprecedented and is increasing fast.
First, however, I want to get clear what we are deploring. Nobody in the House of Commons, I hope, deplores the free exchange of scientists between one country and another. We want to see our scientists going to the Commonwealth and Commonwealth scientists coming back here. Above all, we want our scientists to contribute to the uprising of the underdeveloped territories. That is something which we want to see. We want to see a fair exchange. In the case of emigration to the United States, however, we have a total loss. As the Minister for Science reminded us the other day, it costs £20,000 to educate a Ph.D. This is a financial loss as well as a desperate loss to the science of this country.
We all know that some months ago, the Royal Society undertook a careful study to see exactly what had happened. It studied, therefore, the flow to America compared with the general flow outside. I will give the Committee one set of figures which illustrate the problem. Taking physicists, in the decade from 1952to 1962—I am answering the point made by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) about whether this is something which has always occurred—206 physicists in all left this country, of whom 112, or half, went to America. Of 61 biochemists who left, 33 went to America. In chemistry, the total was 364, of whom 212 went to America. In

other words, two-thirds of our chemists went to the United States. In metallurgy, the figures were 71 and 40.
If one takes the total of Ph.D.s, which is all that the Royal Society was able to study accurately, the total was 1,136, of whom 518 went to America.

Mr. J. Rodgers: How many of these people went for a short period and then returned?

Mr. Crossman: I have thought about this and if the hon. Member will allow me to make my speech, I hope to show the situation. These are the total numbers of emigrant Ph.D.s.
In the case of engineers, we have no figures in this country. I wish that we did. I have had to find some American figures and the best I can find were in a study by the National Science Foundation called Scientific Manpower from Abroad. These are figures only of immigrants into America. These, therefore, are the people who go permanently.
Of 3,000 engineers who went to America in 1961, 1,200 came from Canada and Britain. To go back to 1960, of 3,300going to America, 1,500 were from Canada or Britain. Thus, half of the total of engineers entering America permanently were from Britain and Canada. It is fair to say that of those who came from Canada a high percentage had came originally from this country.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: The hon. Member is giving figures from Canada. We are talking about Britain.

Mr. Crossman: I have given the figure for those engineers who have permanently emigrated to the United States. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman thinks he is doing. I should have thought that it was in the interests of the country to recognise that we have here a most grave situation—that, apart from a healthy interchange, which all would welcome, we have a flood of scientists and engineers streaming to the United States with virtually no one coming back.
But the gross figure is not the most important thing here. Much more important is the rate of annual flow. We find that the rate of annual flow has


doubled in the ten years of the decade. The figure was 4 per cent. in 1952 and it is 8 per cent. in 1962.
When the Royal Society brought these figures out, what was the reaction of the Conservative Government and of the Minister in charge of this matter? A debate took place in another place. Although it would be in order to quote at length the Minister's statement, I will not subject the Committee to such an ordeal. I would remind the Committee merely that the Minister, having been given this strictly scientific study of the figures, replied that he was not content with the Royal Society's explanation and that he discovered that this was really all due to the badness of the American high school. He said that the high schools were so bad in America that the American Government and American big business were compelled "to live parasitically on the brains of other nations in order to supply their own needs."
So the fault lay, according to him, not in ourselves but in our allies! It is not surprising that this astonishing statement caused an explosion of outraged indignation among scientists which is still rumbling round the scientific world. What added insult to injury was the well-known fact that the country which was called "a parasite" subsidises our exiguously financed research with lavish subsidies from American foundations and even from the American Government.
The other day at a meeting of our Parliamentary and Scientific Committee many hon. Members heard a brilliant paper by Professor Stone, of Cambridge, in which he described to us his completely new mathematical model of the national economy, which is of enormous theoretical importance and may well have great practical importance in the long run in the planning of our economy. When Professor Stone finished, an hon. Member said to him, "How is the cash?" Professor Stone replied that, as usual, they got no money from here, and added "I got £10,000 for this from the Ford Foundation. It is running out now. I am trying to get something out of the Bank of England. I hope that it will be possible, but I am not sure".
It was a very interesting moment in one's life to hear it solemnly admitted

that something which is of vital importance to us was relying on the Ford Foundation and that it was doubtful whether the Bank of England would be able to "cough up" £10,000 for it. The fact that all scientists, and particularly the scientists in Cambridge, knew this very well explains why it was so difficult for the Minister for Science to have his honorary degree approved. I can well understand the feelings of the scientists when a politician who becomes the Minister for Science denies the facts and seeks to falsify them for purely political reasons.
What the Minister was trying to do was to say, "It is not my fault. It is nothing to do with my Department. It is nothing to do with the Government. It is all the fault of the Americans". I want to put on the record this afternoon whose fault it is and what is wrong. Let us analyse why the scientists are going to America. Let us discover what is wrong with the universities and our higher education which makes these people leave Britain. It is not that these people do not like Britain. Indeed, most of them would vastly prefer to live here.
I will list five inadequacies, for which the Minister for Science is responsible, with the Government. The first is inadequate salaries. The second is inadequate laboratories and equipment. The third is inadequate opportunities for promotion. The fourth is inadequate postgraduate facilities. The fifth is inadequate time for research; in this country we have many more pupils and far fewer sabbatical years than in the case of the American scientist. The first three of these reasons I have listed apply to everybody, whether engaged in civil research establishments or in university research; the last two only to those in higher education. But I would assert that, together, these five inadequacies have caused the demoralisation which is the prime reason for the brain drain.
I think that I can guess what the Parliamentary Secretary will say in reply. He will say that over the last four or five years the Government have been trying to make good the situation by upping grants, upping building plans, and upping everything else, and he will ask why we cannot be content. I put it on record that we recognise, of course, that a good deal has been done over the last


four or five years to try to catch up and that a good deal is being done now.
But the central problem that we face is that the rate at which we are investing in science and technology is nothing like fast enough to enable us to catch up. That is the real difficulty. Unless we are prepared to make the rate something like double the present one, we shall not be able to create the conditions which will keep our scientists and technologists here and prevent them from feeling that there is stagnancy at home and dynamism abroad.
I suggest that in this respect there is a curious resemblance between the problems of British science and the problems of British sport. Fifty years ago we led the world in sport because we invented it for gentlemen with amateur status. So long as nobody else professionalised themselves we could win the races. Gradually, sport changed—becameprofessionalised. There were new techniques. There were new team methods. Vast sums were spent on sports grounds, equipment and trainers. The whole character of sport changed. We had to choose either to change with it or to lose. We did a little bit of change, and we lost.
I suggest that that analogy holds very closely for the problems of science today. Since 1918 our standing has been slipping. In 1939, we were still able to hold our own in half a dozen fields in which we were pre-eminent, but since the war the situation has altered. This has happened because we were determined to retain our easy-going amateur status. The rest of the world is now passing us by. What our scientists feel today is that they do not get an equal chance with the scientists in America, Russia, France or Germany—for this applies not only to America. It applies to practically every other country in the world where the scale of modern science has been realised and enormous sums are being invested in equipping the scientists with the means of carrying out their researches.
Let me illustrate that with one or two words from America. I was very interested to read the other day a self-examination which was carried out by a group of British scientists working in Harvard, M.I.T. and Florida State. A questionnaire was answered by 83 scientists working at those places. The replies showed overwhelmingly that of

the 83 only 27 were determined to come back to England. The remainder had decided to stay in the United States or were coming back with the hope of returning to America.
The figures did not interest me nearly so much as the reasons which they gave. I will give the Committee two examples of the reasons. I shall not quote names, but, if the Parliamentary Secretary wants them, those concerned are willing that this document should be handed over to him, and they would like him to cross-examine them because they are anxious to make him realise what is wrong.
One of them says:
One generation back, Britain led the world in the subject which interests me—central neuro-physiology. The leadership has now passed to the United States. I would attribute this change primarily to the restriction of research facilities which has bred a cautious and conservative group who spend much of their time confirming the results of others. The blinkers which grow about the eyes of old men are forced by economic pressure on to the faces of the young.
Another one who has come back after two and a half years—he has not a family—has a very good job which will be financed by an American foundation. He says:
In my field which is generally considered to be in an exciting, challenging and highly important state of development, there are two laboratores in England which have international standing, and no further ones are planned. In the United States there are perhaps 50, and new departments and research institutes are being built all over the country. The result is more and better research, greater opportunities, better and more effective teaching, and in all an atmosphere of enthusiasm and intellectual ferment, which all of us here envy. By contrast, in Britain there are university departments where research has all but ceased; laboratories are still housed in disused cinemas, in sheds, in converted lavatories … Worst of all, the number of research students who call be accommodated, or for whom grants … can be obtained is miserably small. This retards scientific progress, and frustrates innumerable young scientists of great potential.
Like all my colleagues, I am deeply convinced that higher education can flourish only in the presence of free research. The dangers of the present situation seem to me immeasurable … Every week one hears of scientists leaving in despair … the surge across the Atlantic has only just begun.

Sir Charles Orr-Ewing: What field was this scientist in?

Mr. Crossman: I will give the hon. Gentleman that information and this


man's name afterwards if he wishes to have them.
Another letter says:
A scientist's best research is generally done before he reaches middle age. There is a whole generation of younger scientists who have waited in vain for better opportunities to do their work in this country … they cannot afford to wait much longer.
This is really a plea from the heart by a man who would like to stay here. If one's best research period comes before the age of 35 or 40, then one must get a professorship earlier than one can get it today. But, in this country, one is not only frustrated by lack of Government funds, but also by the "Establishment" attitude and the oligarchical system—I do not think that the universities are free of blame in this—which holds our youngest scientists down. That is the picture that the Minister should have accepted as the truth and then decided how he would deal with it. We have asked him to decide on a practical policy by which this situation can be remedied and by which the flight to America can be halted, as halted it must be if our national survival is to be ensured. We shall not get a 4 per cent. growth in our national economy, or any of the things we must have, unless we have the scientists and technologists in this country both to do research and, above all, to train our children to be numerate as well as literate and better than ourselves. What are we to do about it?
The Opposition have taken advice from a number of eminent scientists and technologists, to whom I would now like to pay tribute. They have convinced me that money is by no means the only question, that what is first and foremost needed is to deal with the demoralisation which comes from the fact that our younger men do not see any hope of the situation here being improved in the next five or ten years. If these men felt that there was a firm determination that education was to be put at the head of the national investment programme, then they would stay in this country.
I want to read a sentence from The Times, found there by the Principal of London University, and which I gladly borrow:
… education must be put at the head of the national investment programme, if a satisfactory growth in national income is to be achieved.

It is true that to invest money in machinery or capital equipment while saving money on higher education is totally destructive of our chances of staging the recovery which we all desire.
I want to illustrate what I think has gone wrong since the wax by recalling briefly the history of higher education since 1945. Stage 1 was under the Labour Government. During those five years—I will be frank—we had a deplorable failure to launch a building programme. We wanted factories and housing and we did not see what we should have seen—that we could not afford to hold back on building in higher education. We should have done it, but we did not. However, we did double the number of students in our universities. We got them there under bad conditions because we did not improve the buildings. The students at our universities reached a total of 85,314, double the pre-war peak.
Stage 2: The Conservatives came to power and the numbers actually declined. Between 1951 and 1955 there was a decline in the number of people in higher education. And there was not even the excuse that the Government were in the meantime providing new buildings, because, in fact, they did not have a building programme, either. So they neither had the people nor the buildings. They did nothing about the situation. That was stage 2.
Stage 3 started in January, 1957, when a sudden decision was made that higher education mattered. But I estimate that there have been six changes in the target figure for the university population. I will not read them all out. They are all to be found in the record, but the figure has crept up from 106,000 to 150,000. It is impossible to have a properly planned expansion if the politician in charge changes the directive every eighteen months and the target creeps up bit by bit. That has been the difficulty which has been hampering the University Grants Committee.
If hon. Members will not take this from me I will quote them the words of Sir Douglas Logan, at Cambridge. He said:
The age in which we live is sometimes called the age of planning. When we survey the development of university aid during the decade, however, the absence of a coherent plan consistently followed is painfully


Obvious. … The inability to take the long view, the repeated alterations in the target, the fixing of objectives without willing the necessary means are the very negation of planning. The root of the trouble is that the Government is not yet fully converted to the view that education must be put at the head of the national investment programme …
Those words were not those of a Socialist. Sir Douglas is a vigorous and politically independent man, Principal of London University, speaking on behalf of the university world, including the Institutes of Technology. They are saying that if the Government creep the target figure up bit by bit, they cannot plan rationally.
They are telling the Government never again to do what they did last year—demand more places and yet refuse to allow the necessary recurrent grants. That kind of policy makes it impossible to have the steady growth which is needed to give heart back to our scientists and technologists. Our scientists will believe in their future in this country when they can see that laboratories are being built and posts created to enable them to have the opportunities here which they would get abroad.
It is clear that if we want to change this situation the first thing to do is to lay down a 10-year target and keep to it. We think that the most important target required is to double the number of university places over ten years—say, from 1965 to 1975, from 140,000 to 280,000, or 7 per cent. a year. That is a lot, but even so we will not be creating sufficient places for all sixth formers. We should get 10 per cent. of each "year-group" into the universities instead of 5 per cent.
This idea of a 10-year programme to double our university population is, of course, from the scientific point of view only tolerable if it is accompanied by a programme of expansion of research. Just to double the number of student places would wreck scientific research, because the scientists would have to teach more and more and do less and less research while their laboratories would be more over-crowded. Thus, simultaneously, with the increase in university population we shall have to have a huge plan for buildings and—much more important—for creating posts.
We must first create facilities for people to be post-graduates because if one wants, them to stay on in this

country and to study, one must make it possible for them to do so. We must also give them the possibility of promotion at an early age to professorships, which is an opportunity they would certainly get overseas. If we want the kind of growth we envisage, then we will have to create 2,000 new places in universities and in our colleges of advanced technology, which should be up-graded at once and given university status. I have included their figures in the calculations I have given.
Hon. Members may be wondering about the finance involved. We have tried to make a calculation of the extra finance required for the research staff and new building, that is to say, beyond the provision for teaching. We calculate that, at the very maximum, in the first three years an average total increase on research of £30 million to £35 million would be sufficient to create a completely new climate in our universities. For the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary, we break it down roughly in this way: £7 million on current expenditure, £17 million on capital expenditure, and £8 million on grants to research councils.
Invest those amounts and, we believe, we should create a situation in which no scientist could again go on the B.B.C. and say the sort of things which those scientists were forced to say in the remarkable television programme, "Science in the Shadows", which some of us saw. For the first time, in that programme millions of British people realised how scientists have to work—spend more than half their time trying to cadge a little money. They saw for the first time the physical conditions in which scientists have to work and understood what the situation really is.
£35 million a year is a lot of money. But it is not so much when one remembers that even a single changed estimate for a weapon system can cost £80 million a year. One change in an estimate costs £80 million, yet here we are talking of less than half that amount which would liberate the scientific brain-power which it is absolutely essential to use in the struggle for national survival. Moreover in the long-term I reckon that, even taking into account this increase plus the cost of doubling the number of places, we should be spending, instead of the present ½ per cent. of our national income on higher education, about 1 per cent. by 1975.
Now comes the question, if we are to launch a gigantic programme of this sort—I do not underestimate it; it is an enormous programme both for building and for staff—how will it be administered? Here, I say a few words about the functions of the Minister for Science. I know that the Minister is proud of saying that he is the Minister for Science, not Minister of Science. I have read his book with interest. I think that he says it not just because the pledge to make a Minister for Science was an election gimmick in 1959—that is not fair—but because he genuinely believes that, in order to maintain academic freedom, in order to keep in Britain the kind of cultured science, the pure, free independent spirit which all of us greatly respect, we must preserve science and technology from any massive national plan.
I hold exactly the opposite view. I believe that our science and technology can develop only under a great national plan which takes them out of the cloistered atmosphere of the pre-war university, which makes our universities and institutes more like the great universities of America, of Russia and even of China. I was the product, in that sense, of the age of the small universities, although Oxford in my time was a big university by British standards. Naturally, I had an inclination to think that quality depends upon being small. But it does not happen to be true in science and technology.
A university of 20,000 is not a monstrosity. Its size enables it really to cover at least some of all the multifarious research studies which are required. A university of 3,000 is a liberal arts foundation where one wastes money, where one cannot do the job adequately. Some of us are particularly anxious lest the half dozen new universities which we have founded may stick at a level of numbers which prevents their becoming efficient modern universities. Every effort should be made to bring them above 5,000 as soon as we possibly can. We must avoid the terrible danger of every new university setting out to be a universitas, a place where one can learn anything, the idea being that every university should have Professors of Theology, of Romance History, and the rest, each with a pupil and a half. This is the most expensive

piece of obsolete freedom in the whole world. We cannot tolerate that kind of obsolete psychology which inspires Lord Hailsham's belief. With all respect to the belief I know he genuinely holds, it is nonsense.
We must move away from those ideas and have a great national plan under which a real Minister of Science with a real Ministry at his disposal works, on the one side, with the institutions of higher education and, on the other, with industry where the science must be applied. He must have a national plan for industry, on the one hand, and a national plan for higher education, on the other.
I do not wish to discuss now exactly how this should be done in terms of Whitehall. Some people think that we ought to have a centralised Ministry of Education and, alongside, a Ministry of Science. Others believe—I think that this is what I should prefer—that we should have a Minister of Education, on the one side, and a Minister of Higher Education, Science, Research and Technology, on the other. However, this is not my central point now. I wish merely to show the total inadequacy of what has been done in the past.
After three years, the Minister for Science and his Parliamentary Secretary are positively proud of their incapacity to do anything. "This proves how good we are," they say. "If we could do anything, we might do harm", they say, "we might impede academic freedom. We might upset people". So there they stay, with their busload of civil servants, which makes quite certain that they cannot do any harm. Meanwhile, the flight of scientists across the Atlantic proceeds precisely because there is no central dynamism, precisely because there is no hope at present of there coming from the centre, from Whitehall or Westminster, the kind of thrust right through industry and right through the universities which would really create the drive for national survival.
How do we do it? I suggest that the rôle of the Minister here is enormously important. I conceive that the Minister of Science would have three major functions. First, he should control all research. Of course, the research councils are independent bodies which would still allocate the research within the sum,


but the total allocation must be made by the Minister. For this purpose, he ought to have a whole-time Central Science Board to look over the whole field and recommend how research is allocated. In higher education, he should have a reconstituted University Grants Commission. On the side of industry, he should have a central advisory board on technology, that is, a group to advise him on how to make his impact on industry.
On the university side, a separate Minister is necessary partly in order to try to drag us out of the "cloistered calm" notion of the university. Partly, it is necessary to enable specialisation to take place. If every university cannot do everything, someone must decide who specialises in what. This is only possible if there is a central plan administered by a Minister of Science, by the Government.
Third, it is above all important that the Minister should make it his job to stop the separation which now divides research from teaching, pure science from technology and scientists from industrialists. This country has not only got a class-ridden society. There is a class system which works within university education and science and which is ruining our chances of national survival. The Minister for Science should make it his business to see that these artificial snobberies are broken down, the snobberies which make a young man in the sixth form, for instance, believe that pure science can be done only in universities and decide, therefore, that he will not go into industry. We have this ruinous separation now, even at the age of 14, when children have to make up their minds between the arts or science, thinking that the arts are, somehow, superior. The Minister must deal with the whole situation from the top.
First, he should deal with it by elevating the colleges of advanced technology and seeing that they are given full university status. Our C. A. T. s are wonderful places. They should be regarded like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The M.I.T. is one of the greatest universities in the world. Harvard does not think that the M.I.T., which is only a couple of miles or so away, is in some way inferior. We have some very promising C.A.T.s. They should be treated as the fine organisa-

tions they are and be given full university status. They should have the right to grant degrees and everything else. Let their professors be called professors; they are just as good at professing. The British people attach importance to titles in education—although I do not set much store by them myself—and titles seem to matter to the educators even more, perhaps, than they do to other people. Good. Then concede the titles!

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that the whole of higher education—the colleges of advanced technology and the universities, including the arts side of the universities—should be part of the responsibility of the Minister for Science?

Mr. Crossman: I suggested tentatively that one way to do it would be to have a Minister of higher education, science and research. I should have thought that that was the most sensible thing to do.
I wish to say a few words about the problem of science and technology. One of the most important things which Germany has—and I speak with some knowledge of West Germany—and which we do not have is universities in living contact with industry. I should like to see, in my town of Coventry, a university which does not try to ape Oxbridge and compete in all the humane faculties. I should like Coventry University to be proud to be linked with the industry of the town.
At Eindhoven, in Holland, a third of the university professors work at Philips. Is that shocking? Not at all. It links the university with industry and industry with the university. They fertilise each other. We, too, should stop this snobbish division between what is useful and what is true. This is the most important thing which the Minister responsible for science would have to overcome.
That brings me to the other side of this problem, the application of science to industry. My task is made a great deal easier by a remarkable speech made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) in our first science debate three years ago. He said that it would be a waste of time if the introduction of a Minister for Science did not lead to a central plan based on central scientific intelligence


and designed to see that the Government were used in the civil side as in the defence side to achieve the major breakthrough required as much in industry in peace time as it is in wartime. I remember as I was sitting in my place thinking, "This is quite a speech". It was dismissed by the Parliamentary Secretary. It was the only speech which he did not answer. Plenty of columns in his speech were devoted to the other speeches, but not to this one.
After two years the Federation of British Industry brought its civil research policy up to date. However, it has not given credit to the author of this policy, the right hon. Member for Hall Green. This is his plan, lock, stock and barrel. So the prophet has at last got honour in his own country! The industrialists have taken him seriously because they see the red light. They have seen the reduction in the Government expenditure on research and development for defence. Expenditure on research and development in defence has fallen in five years from 59 per cent. to 39 per cent. of the total expenditure on research and development. But even so this year the grand total is £630 million. The Government have £245 million on defence out of £385 million and private industry has £213 million.
The F.B.I., in this remarkable document, demand Government pump priming because private industry could not do the job. Because its resources are not great enough, private industry must ask the Government to help. How willing we are to hear these converts to our view. What a wonderful thing it is that they at last realise that it is impossible for private industry to do the job. It is too big for individual firms or consortia. The Government must help and if they will not do it through the by-products of weapons systems, the F.B.I, insists that they do it direct.
My own view is that they should do it direct, anyway. We should not have waited until we had given up the independent deterrent. Yes, I said "given up" because science wise, we have given it up. No scientific research is being done on maintaining it in the future. That is why Aldermaston is a place where no one knows what he is doing because the functions of research in

nuclear weapons, electronics, missiles, and so on, have been cut down by the Government.
Therefore, the F.B.I, says, "We must have access to Government research establishments for peaceful uses", and I agree. Government research establishments are enormously costly institutions. The security might be lifted off most of them so that we could look at them and find out whether the fantastic expenditure is justified and whether all the talent and skilled craftsmen involved could not be used more usefully than they are. There are many things which we should like to do.
However, I disagree with the F.B.I.'s view as to how the Government should handle the firms to which they give money. The F.B.I. says that the Government should choose one firm and give development contracts as was done in defence. And it goes on to suggest that there is no other way by which we can get a large-scale injection of Government R and D except by the development contract boldly given to one firm. But the idea that, having given it to a firm, the Government should raise their eyes and say, "We are not interested in what profits the firm makes" is an idealism beyond me. I have always heard that businessmen believed that when one invested money one had the right to a return on one's money. Apparently, that applies only when private enterprise invest money because when the Government says to a firm, "I want to be a big investor" they raise their eyes above the level of profit.
If the Committee does not believe me, I should like to read the passage in question from the pamphlet. I am sorry; I have lost the passage.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): It is page 5.

Mr. Crossman: The Parliamentary Secretary is a chivalrous and generous man. That is a handsome gesture, considering what is coming.
The pamphlet states:
We cannot escape the conclusion that the Government should face up to the possibly invidious task of selecting the most suitable firm on the basis of the best chance of success both scientifically and commercially.
And he went on to say that the Government should not be too concerned about


royalties which in America are sometimes waived by the Government or oversensitive about possible advantage which might accrue to a company. We take a very different view. If the Government are to become, as we have said for years they should become, a major investor and invest not only money but the brains of our scientists and technologists and the skill of our craftsmen in private enterprise they must, first, demand a full return for the taxpayer and, secondly, where they are in a commanding position, they must exert control. They must provide the money and they must have the control and there seems to me no real alternative to that.
I would go a stage further. Another sentence in the F.B.I, pamphlet states:
This cannot be achieved until all heads of companies become fully research-minded, nor until adequate status is accorded to those responsible for research and development …".
I should like to suggest a standard on which the Government should insist in this matter. Why should they not insist that they will not give money to companies which do not give proper status to their scientists? Why not use the pressure of money to modernise companies' attitudes to science and insist that their operations should be conducted by trained scientists? Then a development contract would be acceptable. I see enormous advantages in the F.B.I. scheme if only it were carried out, as it will be carried out, by a Labour Government.

Sir C. Orr-Ewing: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I know that he is trying to be constructive. When he says that the Minister whom he envisages should be responsible for higher education should control research, does he mean that he should control research in universites or does he visualise him controlling research in industry as well?

Mr. Crossman: He would obviously be responsible in the last resort for the research councils. It should be possible to exert the degree of control required through those admirable bodies. The same would be done in industry. One would set up organisations through which one would control the spending. On the other hand, one would give the company the ability to run itself efficiently and to do a good job. Much of

this has been worked out, as the Zuckermann Report proved, in defence. After billions were lost, something was gained by working out how a development contract could be policed by a Government Department. I do not believe that this will be an insoluble problem, and I hope that we shall hear about it from the right hon. Member for Hall Green.
I want, finally, to return to the central problem. Our central problem is national revival—and first the halting of our decline, the halting of the flight of the scientists, which is a deadly symptom of decline. This can be achieved only by a complete revolution in our attitude to science in education and in industry.
In thinking of this, I cannot help going back to the 1930s when everybody wanted to defeat Hitler. We were all to blame. Very few people were right about this. We wanted little packets of defence. We were prepared to make this concession to rearmament and that concession to rearmament, but not on a scale which would upset our cosy freedom. As a result, when war came, by 1940 the millions of pounds which had been spent had been wasted. Of course, then, as now, there were the good things which had been done. We had the Spitfire and the Hurricane and we had radar, but we spent billions inadequately because we were too timid and prepared for the wrong war.
I suggest that our attitude to science and research in this peace-time struggle now has been the same. Our assistance comes in penny packets. We spare the money, but we fail to see the dimensions of the revolution, a revolution in which we have to have co-operation among universities and higher education and Government, on the one hand, and between industry and Government, on the other, a co-operation such as we have never had before. Above all, scientists who understand must be allowed to be fully consulted from the top to the bottom.
In 1940, we had an easy way out. Hitler made a physical attack upon us and we were forced by it to undertake the total reorganisation of the economy. We shall not have that easy way out this time—pray God—for we cannot have it in nuclear war. We have to will the revolution ourselves. We have to


carry through voluntarily this tremendous change which was forced on us in 1940. It is because we see no sign of recognition by the Government of the scale of the scientific revolution required that we shall go into the Lobby against them tonight.

4.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) to this annual science debate. There is also a newcomer on our side. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation will be replying to the debate on behalf of the Government, and I think that this is particularly fitting on at least two counts. One is that he will be able to deal with the problem of the scientific aid which this country gives to developing countries; and the other is that he was the chairman of a committee of Conservatives which produced a C.P.C. pamphlet on science in industry and which came out last November. The debate has now become a tradition and I, for one, rejoice that this is so.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East centralised his speech about two themes, but from the choice of those themes he covered the whole spectrum of research and development, from basic research in the laboratory, on the one hand, to its technological applications in industry, on the other. In the former case one thinks, of course, of the universities and those scientists who are pursuing knowledge for its own sake and who, in their laboratories, are today pushing back ever further the frontiers of knowledge. Now that almost the whole world has been explored by man, these people are the true frontiersmen of the twentieth century.
In this field, my noble Friend the Minister for Science has always adhered to one principle. It is a principle which we on our side of the Committee are certain is right. It is that in basic research one has to try to find the best men with the best ideas and to support them. This is a philosophy which underlies the research council concept which we have had in this country for a very large number of years. Of course, it is only the scientist who can advise the Minister

on what are the best ideas, and only the scientist in the same field as the person who is seeking public money to support its researches.
I emphasise this fact because if, from time to time, the research councils are criticised for having set their standards too high, it is a criticism which I, for one, do not bear too hardly. I admit that there is to this an essential corollary and it is that if the right man should, in fact, be supported there should be other forms of assistance available to the scientist to whom he can apply for support for his researches. The scientist who advises in and around Whitehall is no more infallible than the man in Whitehall, the man who, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) once stated, knew best.
This is why I have always welcomed the fact that there are charitable foundations, industry and others to support research in this country. I do not believe that in a free society the financial support for research should come only from the Government. It should be considered one of those activities essential to civilisation the support of which is a co-operative effort by Government, by private individuals and by corporate bodies.
As I understand, the charge of the hon. Member is that the present level of the emigration of our leading scientists shows that the Government are not supporting the best men with the best ideas and that, for various reasons, such as insufficient pay at home, or inadequate technical assistance and facilities, or possibly lack of promotion prospects, far too high a proportion of our leading scientists are taking up posts overseas, and when we say "overseas", we mean America.
I think that we accept that it is part of our duty to export, if "export" is the right word, scientists and technologists and technicians to developing countries, particularly those in the Commonwealth, to help them raise their standards of living. It is a proud thing that this country should be in a position so to do; and in this context we are particularly fortunate to have my right hon. Friend to wind up the debate.
The hon. Member referred to the report issued by the Royal Society a few months ago. I accept it as a most valuable document. But emigration is not


a new development. The Advisory Council on Scientific Policy reviewed the situation a few years ago, though less extensively than the Royal Society's committee. However, the findings of the Advisory Council were in line with those of the Committee. My noble Friend has had the latter report examined, and has taken advice on it from various quarters.
My noble Friend and I would like to pay tribute to those who compiled it under the chairmanship of Sir Gordon Sutherland, the very eminent head of the National Physical Laboratory, and himself, incidentally, according to the criteria adopted by the Royal Society for the purpose of this report, for some years a permanent emigrant from this country when he held a distinguished scientific chair in the United States' University of Michigan. Hon. Members will have seen in the newspapers over the weekend reports of the new Director of the National Chemical Laboratory, at present a professor in the University of Virginia, and who was born and educated in New Zealand.
There is one more thing which I should like to say about the Royal Society's report. The estimates are for gross emigration and not net emigration, which has been found impracticable to assess. In addition, the report deals only with doctors of philosophy and university staff.
There is no doubt that there is considerable immigration into this country from the Commonwealth. I am told, for example, that more than 60 Fellows of the Royal Society were born and educated overseas, which is no less than 10 per cent. of the total number. Of course, the President of the Royal Society himself, Sir Howard Florey, one of our most distinguished scientists, came to this country from Australia.
It is by no means uncommon for professorships in this country to be filled either by Commonwealth citizens or by people who have gone from this country to serve abroad and who have then come back. At least four professors in chemistry and two in biology have come to us from Australia and New Zealand since 1952. There is another side to the coin of emigration.
As the hon. Member said, none of us would wish to prohibit people from going

and working overseas, particularly the young scientist who has just obtained his doctorate. But the serious fact revealed by the report is that in 1961 nearly 200 doctors of philosophy and members of university staffs took up permanent posts abroad. This is about 17 per cent. of the annual output.
We can, I believe, take some comfort from the fact that since 1958 the proportion of the intake lost in this way has been stable, and if anything it is today less than in 1957. The evidence suggests that there is a considerable offset to emigration to the Commonwealth but very little in the way of immigration of scientists to this country from the United States, to which in 1961 about 80 of these scientists left to take up permanent employment. I accept that this is a serious situation, but it is certainly not "leaving the country in droves," as the hon. Member for Coventry, East rather picturesquely suggested at the beginning of his speech.
Nor are we alone in this situation. American immigration statistics show that nearly all European countries, and, indeed, a good many others, are losing scientists to the U.S.A., and although it is true that our proportion of U.S.A. immigrant scientists is greater than the proportion provided by other European countries, I think that this is something of a tribute to our educational system.
The cause of this is obvious enough. The United States has a gross national income which is about seven to eight times that of this country. It has a population three times as big. The general standard of living of the professional classes there is higher. American industry is organised in very big units which can afford large research and development programmes and establishments. Nor must we forget the large American defence and space programmes.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the speech which my noble Friend made in another place on 27th February, but, in essence, what he said cannot be gainsaid. It is a fact that today, and probably for some years to come, the United States is, and will be unable to provide from its own educational system a sufficient number of highly qualified scientists to man the enormous demands of the American Government and industrial research and development programmes.
Indeed, the Royal Society, on the last page of its Report, quotes the National Science Foundation as saying:
Since domestic institutions of higher education do not yet provide the country's needed annual aggregate of scientists, it would seem reasonable to assume that the American scientific community could continue to absorb foreign scientists at their present rate of entry for some time to come.
This is true. I think that it is accepted by the hon. Gentleman, and I therefore do not think that he has grounds for criticising my noble Friend for stating this truth.

Mrs. Judith Hart: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we have enough manpower to supply the industrial needs of other countries?

Mr. Freeth: If the hon. Lady waits she will hear me deal with the point that has come to her mind. It came to my mind, too.
This, naturally, creates a serious problem for all countries which are less rich than the Americans and whom the Americans can outbid, although I acknowledge that we have benefited, as the hon. Gentleman conceded, from the generous flow of American funds which has helped to finance research of great value to British science.
I do not think that it is true to say that my noble Friend ignored that side of this question, which deals with the problem of mitigating the present situation and making emigration less attractive.

Mr. Crossman: Is it the hon. Gentleman's view that "parasitic" is the best way of describing somebody who contributes generously to science? It is the word "parasitic" which is difficult to swallow.

Mr. Freeth: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he should be the last to criticise someone else for an oratorical flight of fancy.
It is plainly obvious that we in this country cannot compete with the salaries or conditions which the United States can offer. We must also admit that we started with a handicap of two world wars, a longish period of economic stagnation between them, and six years of Socialist Government after 1945, which

the hon. Gentleman himself generously admitted was a major cause.
Also, during recent years since the war we have had to provide for a large increase in university population and in the numbers of people qualifying for university entrance, and today we are spending about ten times as much on university building as we were when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took office. I do not think that a tenfold increase in six to seven years can be regarded as a lack of effort, and I do not think that it compares badly with the doubling proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
Next, there is criticism of university salaries. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these are being reviewed by the National Incomes Commission. Secondly, there is the amount of money which the universities have to spend in total, and here the Committee will recall that my right. hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently announced £16 million addition in grants for the universities in the next four years, and on the total grant provided for universities, possibly Wednesday's debate will be a better forum in which to go into detail.
Thirdly, my noble Friend has been looking at the assistance which the research councils give to university science, and I am pleased to announce that, with effect from the next academic year, the research councils will add to the awards made by them to postgraduate students undergoing research training an annual sum of £200 per student, payable to the university department concerned, as a contribution towards the incidental costs incurred in the training of these students, such as the provision of equipment, and so on. This will make available from next year an annual sum of about £800,000 for the university departments. I believe that this will considerably relieve the shortage of funds for incidental and minor expenditure in the science departments of the universities about which complaint has been made to me, and I expect to other hon. Members in the past.
That is its purpose, but I would add that the Government confidently expect that the universities themselves will not adjust the sum made available from


university funds to these science departments in any way which would result in this relief being reduced. I support what the hon. Gentleman said about getting co-operation between universities and industry and universities and research facilities in laboratories, and I was very pleased to learn a little while ago that five members of the staff of the National Engineering Laboratory, at East Kilbride, had been made honorary professors of the Royal Glasgow College.
The next thing we are doing is to consider extending the existing arrangements which enable certain scientists who have taken doctorates, and wish to go abroad to pursue research elsewhere for a year or two, to apply before they go for certain appointments such as research fellowships in the United Kingdom so that these can be taken up when they return from overseas. I believe that such an extension of our present practice may well make scientists less inclined to accept offers of permanent employment when they are overseas.
As the Committee knows, to attract British scientists and engineers now in North America there is a joint interviewing board of the Atomic Energy Authority and the Scientific Civil Service which interviews persons in North America for a wide range of fellowship posts, including posts in the experimental officer class. So far the numbers coming forward to the Board have been rising, as have the numbers who have been placed. Last year, nearly 250 people were interviewed in North America and 86 appointments were filled compared with 56 in 1961. I hope that both these trends will continue.
A further incentive to scientists to remain in this country is the growing size of our own national research and development effort, which I thought the hon. Gentleman rather decried. Here I think that the recent Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy contains heartening evidence of the progress of British science during the last few years. It is a pity that statistics refer mainly to sums of money, because money is a poor gauge of value in science. Indeed, it is as easy to waste public money on science as on almost any other subject, although I believe that in this country we get the best value possible for what we spend.
The tables on page 13 of the Report show that since my noble Friend has been responsible, in part or whole, for the nation's research and development effort, the total amount spent has more than doubled, from £300 million in 1955–56 to £634 million in 1961–62. I think that these figures are all the more impressive, because, viewed as a function of the gross national product, they represent a rise from 1·7 per cent. in 1955–56 to 2·7 per cent. in 1961–62, and we all hope that by the time the next triennial statistics are collected we shall have reached 3 per cent.
Among the most heartening figures shown in these tables is the one which the hon. Member himself quoted, the rise in expenditure by private industry in the last three years from £136 million to £213 million, a rise of over 55 per cent. I believe that this substantial increase reflects very great credit indeed upon the forward-looking management of a very large section of our industry, and I should like to pay great tribute to it.
But outside the defence sphere for which my noble Friend is not Departmentally responsible, Government expenditure on civil research has also substantially increased. The value of research financed by Government civil Departments and the Atomic Energy Authority in the last three years has risen from just over £64 million to just over £110 million, and that financed by the research councils from just under £18 million in 1958–59 to just over £29 million in 1961–62, while the cost of research actually carried out in the universities and technical colleges rose from just over £23 million to just over £32 million. Indeed research in the universities which s supported by the Research Councils has multiplied by a factor of about three since 1957. I believe that this is a very creditable performance indeed.

Mr. Harold Davies: I do not want to denigrate the increase in the sums spent on research. I believe with all sincerity that in the case of the Atomic Energy Authority, and the research about which no one seems to get the truth, we ought to see that we are getting value for the money spent on that research, and that the Minister for Science should act as a co-ordinator of research and in some


cases help to direct it, assisted by any expert advice that he may need.

Mr. Freeth: It cannot be said that we are trying to bide information about the Atomic Energy Authority's programme. In recent years, there has been a successive widening of the amount of information released to hon. Members and the recent annual report of the Atomic Energy Authority contains a very large amount of information which I would willingly debate in full on another occasion.

Mr. Harold Davies: Why not now?

Mr. Freeth: Because there is not time. It is however the contention of the hon. Member for Coventry, East and of the F.B.I. working group report that this volume should be further increased. The hon. Gentleman referred to the demand in the report for an increase of about £100 million per annum over the next three to five years in civil applied research and development. My colleagues and I naturally noted this recommendation with great interest. Of course it will be seriously considered. I think that hon. Members will be aware that the report itself recognised a limiting factor in the next three to five years must be the availability of qualified scientists and technologists, apart from any limitation in financial terms.
The report says that methods must be found of allocating State funds on this sort of scale to the support of civil applied research and development contracts on their merits. This illustrates one very important point, namely, the difficulty of identifying those research and development projects in industry which could be best supported by a deliberate drive of this kind.
Before I come on to the question of Government aid for applied research and technology, I should like to deal with, to my mind, one of the most difficult problems about civil basic scientific research. Of course there is the problem of producing sufficient scientists and technologists, and the size of the universities. This we shall debate in some detail on Wednesday. But I would say in reply to the hon. Member who talked of doubling the student population in the universities and colleges of advanced technology that over the next 10 years

between 1957 and 1967 we shall under a Tory Government have not done far off that with an increase in the university student places from about 85,000 to about 150,000. I think that the difference between us, taking past records against future promises, might be regarded as more marginal than decisive.
Here in the context of this debate I would merely like to point out that in the six years between 1956 and 1962 our annual output of qualified scientists rose by 60 per cent. and qualified technologists by 43 per cent. This is impressive, and the increase will go on.
A far more difficult problem is how one should deploy the nation's scientific effort. Certain disciplines for one reason or another become very popular. Perhaps it is more easy to get money for research in them. Certainly in the case of nuclear physics, for example, the Government have in recent years made substantial increases in the sums available for building and working facilities both for our national effort and in support of co-operative research facilities abroad. We have therefore first of all the problem of keeping a balance between say, nuclear physics on the one hand and biology on the other.
We have also the problem of how we should divide our total effort between international projects and international centres, on the one hand, and maintaining our own national education and research effort, on the other. I do not want to prejudge any of these issues, but it is in this context that I should like to refer, as I did last year, to the Committee sitting under the Chairmanship of Sir Burke Trend. The Government hope that they will have its report in the autumn, and that it will then be able to improve its own organisation to deal better with, for example, the two problems which I have mentioned and also the problem raised in the F.B.I. report about the allocation of State funds for the support of civil applied research and development projects.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The hon. Gentleman mentioned biology. Does he agree that the whole future of the human race may depend on our common researches in molecular biology whereby it may be possible to improve the very quality of the human race? Can he say whether this is in his mind, and what priority is


being given to research in a field in which I think Britain is definitely leading?

Mr. Freeth: Support is being given to research into molecular biology at Cambridge and I have not yet had any report of dissatisfaction about the support which the Medical Research Council gives to it. Indeed, the Nobel Prizewinners from that laboratory when they appeared on television just after receiving their awards said some very kind and laudatory things about the Council.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian) rose—

Mr. Freeth: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way, because there is much more that I want to say.
The hon. Gentleman, when talking about the organisation of the office of the Minister for Science, made one or two interesting suggestions. I know that he will forgive me saying that they were not particularly new. He suggested that under the present system there was no way of trying to make a particular university a centre for research in a particular subject and rather gave the impression that all universities automatically tried to have departments in practically every subject. If one looks across the board one sees the special support given by the D.S.I.R. to seismology in Edinburgh and the special support given for meat research at Bristol University by the Agricultural Research Council, and the possibility in food research at Norwich. When one knows of the discussions going on about the possibility of making the new Sussex University a centre for theoretical astronomy in this country and the five centres for nuclear physics which we have I think that it will be seen that the development has not been quite so haphazard as the hon. Member wished to suggest. Indeed, I believe that my noble Friend is far better as a Minister for Science in relation to the universities and to basic research than he would be if he attempted to tell people what to do. I remember having an argument about that in each of our previous debates on the subject.
One of his main tasks is that of isolating the right problems and obtaining expert advice upon it. This is exemplified in the recent Report on the

problem of noise. Here I repeat my gratitude to Sir Alan Wilson and his Committee, who dealt with the problem. Hon. Members will recall an Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) on 3rd July, which repeated my noble Friend's statement in another place. Hon. Members will not wish me to repeat it now, but I would say in this connection that on Friday I was privileged to be asked to open at the Building Research Station a new physics laboratory which cost over £400,000 and which will enable, among other things, research to increase on the problem of noise in buildings. This laboratory contains a combined unit, consisting of adjoining anechoic and reverberant chambers—in other words, one chamber without any echoes and one chamber with—which is unique in Western Europe. I believe that its completion and opening last week shows the Government's continual and forward-looking planning in the intensification and increase of their research effort in important fields, and the provision of new facilities.
I said earlier on that when we were dealing with basic scientific research the main problem was to choose first-class men with first-class ideas, and to support them. When, however, we come to the other end of the spectrum, that is, to applied science and technology, the problem is somewhat different. The nation still needs the first-class man, but it needs to be able to spend a great deal of money in order to support both the facilities that are needed and the army of supporting technologists and technicians.
One of this most important problems which we must first try to get clear is the rôle of Government in applied research and development in a free society. On the defence side the problem is fairly easy. The Government's military advisers state a requirement and the Government either do or do not award a development contract to develop that requirement. The problem is also easier where the public sector on the civil side is likely to be the main user. Then, again, valuable opportunities exist for British industry in the field of the new space technologies. I want to say a brief word about those


arising from the scientific space research programme for which my noble Friend is responsible.
I have just written to the various trade associations concerned about the opportunities arising from the scientific research programme, in connection both with the preparation of equipment designed by university and other scientists for flight in rockets and satellites and with the initial creation of the establishments of the European Space Research Organisation and its subsequent programme. Experimental equipment to be "flown" in space will be required first for our own sounding rocket programme, which is to become more sophisticated and diversified. Secondly, experiments will be flown in the Anglo-American co-operative satellite programme comprising the successors of the very successful Ariel satellite and, thanks to the maturing of another American offer, in large American "observatory" type satellites for which acceptance of British experiments has just started. Thirdly, experiments will be flown in E.S.R.O. sounding rockets and satellites.
The requirements of E.S.R.O. will comprise the initial equipment for various establishments and then a continuing programme partly of extra-mural contracts for sounding rockets, satellites and space probes. Here, also, Government, in a sense, is the ultimate user.
It is when we are dealing with private industry that the problem is very much more difficult. Relatively little basic research is either undertaken or financed directly by industry. This is reasonable, because a large part of it has to take place either in the universities or in Government research laboratories. On the other hand, industry undertakes a large amount of applied research and technological development, with the aim of increasing the company's profits with a new or improved product or process. Indeed, the 1961 Report of the F.B.I. on research in manufacturing industry suggested that about five-sixths of industry's research—apart from the aircraft industry—was expected to produce results "soon", as the report put it. It is therefore in the realms which lie between that the mean problems of Government action arise.
If a technological development is obviously going to be successful and profitable, industry will undoubtedly support it. Indeed, the successes of British industry show this to be amply true. It therefore follows that the realms in which Government support is canvassed for finance are realms in which projects are either very speculative or very long-term, or of doubtful profitability for industry and, possibly, for the nation. For the Government to support projects which industry considers not worthy of support must always be a somewhat haphazard use of the taxpayer's money.
But there is a role for Government in this respect. I do not think that it is quite as easy to identify, or possibly quite as large, as some people suggest. At the very applied end we have the National Research Development Corporation. Further back the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is the Government's main instrument. For some years there has been a joint committee of the N.R.D.C. and D.S.I.R. in order to make certain that no projects fall between the two. Then there are the Government-aided research associations, mentioned to a considerable extent by the Carr Report and the F.B.I. Report, but not by the hon. Member for Coventry, East today. Then there is the D.S.I.R. Annual Report, which came out only last week.
Each year the Government make more money available to the research associations. It has been suggested on many fronts that this is not enough, but we have to remember that the research associations exist for the benefit of the industries which they serve and if there is to be any profit at all, that profit goes, first and foremost, to the companies which are members of those associations. If the support for an association is too small it is worth asking whether or not industry really believes that membership of the association is either worth while or profitable. It is no use a company's regarding its subscription to a research association as yet another item on its charity list. If industry does not think that its work is of benefit it is worth asking oneself why the taxpayer should take over.
The aim of the Government contribution is to give an additional degree of flexibility to the research programme and also to enable more basic research to be undertaken than otherwise would be


carried out. I do not believe that the Government should give larger general grants unless industry does the same.
I agree with much that appears in the section of the F.B.I. Report concerning the research associations. I agree that in many cases amalgamations are desirable. I am happy today to announce yet another marriage, namely, the marriage between the Whiting Research Association and the Chalk, Lime and Allied Industries Research Association—commonly known as "CLAIRA". A possible alternative line of development for small research associations has been shown by the efforts of the British Hat and Allied Felt Makers and the Gelatine and Glue Research Associations to develop into international centres of technological research. There is also a great future for research associations turning themselves into focal points of research in existing fields. That is why the Government have instituted not a substantial increase in general grants but a system of earmarked grants, given to support particular projects which have originated in research association laboratories. The Department has already received a number of applications, and I hope that the first of these grants may be announced shortly.
Of course, there are difficulties in applying this technique to industry, as the F.B.I.'s Report intimates. In the case of a civil development contract the company is obviously supplying part of the overhead costs of the projects, and will demand part of the profits. The Working Group's Report states that there should be civil development contracts where the Government are not the immediate purchaser. The hon. Member opposite considered that that should be the case. I can say that my noble Friend and I pretty fully accept the ideas in this section of the Working Group's Report, but what does worry us is that the Report seems to ignore the fact that the Government have already authorised the D.S.I.R. to conclude, in the civil field, development contracts of this type. Three have already been awarded.
I fully realise that if the Working Group was ignorant of this fact—and I have found industrial associations which were so ignorant—part of the blame must lie at my door. I would,

however, remind the Committee that I emphasised the availability of these contracts in my speech of 12th July last year and I would re-emphasise that again. I hope that D.S.I.R. will receive many more applications. At the present time it has 15 of them under examination and an encouraging flow of inquiries.

Mr. Austen Albu: Could the hon. Gentleman just state in what industries the three are and what is the total value of the amounts?

Mr. Freeth: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will give that, as I have not got the figures so clearly in my head that I feel I could give them without fear of being inaccurate.
The first part of the F.B.I. Working Group's Report was addressed to industry. If I may say so, I thought that the comments at the end were quite excellent, particularly in the emphasis laid upon the need for management to comprehend—this word appears several times—the benefits of research. The Government will have the job to try to help industry in this task of helping itself. The work of the liaison services of the research associations has been expanding in recent years, and I think that the special liaison grants for members have been an outstanding success. During this year the work of the seven regional technical information centres has been established and expanded.
Thirdly, in Scotland and Wales the work of the mutual assistance schemes has gone on, and I hope that this will further expand. Fourthly, in Scotland we have this year undertaken a new experiment whereby lecturers of the central institutions give up part of their time to liaison work in industry in order to evoke in firms a greater awareness of the benefits of research and development and how the results of both can help them. We are now exploring the possibility of extending the system south of the Border.
Finally, I would mention the National Science Lending Library which my noble Friend opened earlier this year.
There is one major point not touched on by the hon. Member for Coventry, East and which to my mind is a very important one indeed. It is the fact that


we are not training sufficient technologists, and the allied fact that technology is today not sufficiently attractive to the student with first-class brains as are the arts and science. Dr. Bowden, of the Manchester College of Technology, stated this to be a fact in a recent paper and said that far fewer first-class brains in this country studied technology than was the case with our industrial competitors in Europe. This is confirmed by a recent study made by the Oxford Department of Education of the attitude of sixth form boys towards technology. Again, although there is an overall shortage of university places, the vast majority of the vacancies which exist each October exist in the engineering departments, and failures in engineering are, I regret to say, larger, percentage-wise, than failures in other subjects.
This, of course, was something which used not to be. In the nineteenth century everybody knew the names of Stephenson and Brunel. Today people do not know the names of our great engineers, nor do they seem to have the magic they had a century ago. Almost every child could tell the name of the scientist who runs the Jodrell Bank telescope. Few people indeed could tell the name of the engineer who, in collaboration with Sir Bernard Lovell, designed and built it. I know that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) can.

Mr. Albu: I was thinking of another engineer whose name was prominently mentioned in the House of Lords last week.

Mr. Freeth: I think there are a number of reasons for this state of affairs. I think part is the lack of knowledge in the schools of what a career in technology can mean. I think that industry has a part to play in welcoming, and indeed in suggesting, as in many cases forward-looking firms do, visits by groups of sixth and fifth form boys and girls to engineering works. I think that this would be a form of enlightened self-interest, as a measure for providing technologists, by industries in emphasising the contribution which technologists have made to their products and to British exports, to British wealth, and company profits.
Of course, the Government have a part to play, too. One of the main ways is by increasing the number of research studentships in technology, and I am pleased to announce that the D.S.I.R. has this year offered 100 additional studentships, an increase of about one-third. It will also be able to augment, in the academic year which begins in October, the number of awards which it can offer for advanced technological training by a figure of 190 at a total cost in a full year of £100,000. This is the Government's response to a very welcome increase in demands for such awards this year.
Before I close I should mention one other point. The Committee will remember that in a speech a year ago I announced the setting up of a Committee under Mr. Feilden on the subject of engineering design. I regret that it has not proved possible to publish his report in time for this debate, but it will be published later this week. I should like to take this opportunity of paying public tribute to Mr. Feilden and the members of his Committee. I think that hon. Members will find their report of immense interest. In a few months we shall also have the report of the Robbins Committee on Higher Education, and about the same time the Government will have the Trend Report. With the Reports of these three Committees we shall, I believe, be in a unique position to shape the scientific and technological efforts of this country for a generation. My noble Friend and I look forward to reading them, and we are looking forward to the constructive work which will follow from them.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East suggested that the way to solve this whole problem was to give priority to education and to research and development. I accept that those are his views. Quite frankly, as one reads the record of the debates in the Committee of Supply which occur with almost embarrassing frequency at this time of year one notices that on each occasion the Opposition spokesman demands an absolute priority for the subject which is then under discussion, whether it is housing, health, roads, or the development districts of high unemployment. It is impossible to give total priority to all of these. In fact any Government have got to decide


how much they will devote to them and how to divide it between all the competing claims, for which it is very easy indeed to state an interest. I do not feel that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends in this as much as in any other field, are likely to solve these problems I have outlined to the Committee more efficiently than will my noble Friend and his colleagues. The opportunities which will occur after publication of the three Reports in the latter part of this year, and the opportunities for taking decisions afterwards are opportunities which, I hope, there will be still a Conservative Government here to take.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: The closing words of the Parliamentary Secretary have thrown out a certain challenge to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and to my other hon. and right hon. Friends. We happen to believe that there should be a high priority for higher education, for research and technological development, because these are the very basis of the expansion of our economy, to which my hon. Friend, in a very notable speech, referred—the very basis of the revival on which this country is going to depend. On this expansion depends the amount we can spend on housing, health and the other social services.
The Parliamentary Secretary's speech was a mixture. It started off—I thought it was going on continuously—with a sort of apologia. He spent so much time trying to explain away his noble Friend's remarks about the American education and the loss of British scientists, that I thought he was never going to get down to the rest of the subject. When he did get down to it he gave us what in a foreign affairs debate would be called a tour ďhorizon. Although it was full of a number of welcome details such as the grants to university science departments for technical aid, the welcome birth of C.L.A.I.R.A. after a shotgun marriage—

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Just for the record, C.L.A.I.R.A. is one of the parties to the marriage. She is not the product.

Mr. Albu: I see. I had not fully followed that. I am sure it is a very important step forward in the arrangements we are making for scientific research.
I want to deal with three subjects. First, I want to deal with the machinery for dealing with scientific decisions at the top level, which was dealt with by my hon. Friend and also, towards the end of his speech, by the Parliamentary Secretary. Secondly, I want to deal with some problems of medical research which have not been referred to so far in the debate, and thirdly, I want to say something about the machinery for raising the technological level of British industry to which reference has already been made.
As to the machinery for making decisions at top level, we are looking, as in so many other fields of Government policy, for outside advice. We are waiting for Trend, for Robbins, for Fielden, for Plowden and for "Nicky". It seems to me that a good deal of the things which many of these committees are finding out ought already to be available to Ministers and that decisions on them could be taken. There has been enough published advice on this subject which shows a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Government's administration of science and technology, not only among hon. Members on this side of the House and their friends but also among hon. Members opposite.
It cannot be said that the publication by the Conservative Political Centre, for which I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) was largely responsible—it was produced under his chairmanship—displayed satisfaction with the present machinery of Government or with what was being done in these fields. I should be glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say when he winds up. Nor can it be said that the Report of the F.B.I., which may owe a lot to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), was uncritical of the Government.
All these reports and all the opinions one hears outside are in sharp contrast to the views expressed by the Minister for Science and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East referred. These views seem to me to be much more in the tradition of the Conservative Party's history during most of the 19th century when it inherited the mantle of 19th century Liberalism with its laissez-faire attitude towards policy in the economic and social fields. It seems to


me that the noble Lord, while recognising the increasing part which Government financial support for scientific research is bound to play, fears so much that this will corrupt the scientists that he is unable to take any action at all But most countries have supported scientific work and research for at least the last century and there is no evidence to support the views which the right hon. Gentleman appears to hold. It is, of course, the case that too great a concentration on problems concerned with defence, which is, I regret to say, happening in most industrial countries at present, may have a corrupting influence, but this concentration is not a concomitant of Government support for science.
What does follow from this support for scientific research, and this has been referred to both by my hon. Friend and by the Parliamentary Secretary, is the necessity for some means of deciding what research to support and how to support it. It seems to me that in the noble Lord's mind there is a confusion between the danger of the denial of freedom to the scientist to report freely his findings, and this is a dangerous matter in defence matters as well as under authoritarian régimes, and some degree of control over these areas of research which ought to be encouraged and supported.
It seems that we all agree that some degree of control over the areas of research to be supported is both inevitable and welcome. It seems also to me that the noble Lord's attitude downgrades the prestige of applied research—for instance into such matters as the discovery of new materials, the development of nuclear power or, for instance, the curing of cancer—and also that of objective basic research in support of the development of new processes, materials and products. This is in contradiction to what the Parliamentary Secretary said and what the noble Lord has also said about the danger to this country of its attitude to applied research and technology. Nevertheless, the Minister for Science seems to persist in this attitude.
How are we to decide in these matters of scientific policy? It is very strange that while decisions in other fields, for

instance, economic and social, are more and more supported by a scientific inquiry and statistical analysis, decisions in the field of science and technology remain at an intuitive and empirical level. This is to be seen not only in Government circles but also in industry and in commerce outside. One has only to read the unhelpful article in the Economist this week on the development of nuclear energy to realise how almost emotionally empirical such comments can be. Attention is drawn to this in a very interesting memorandum privately circulated by Dr. Stephen Toulmin who is the director of the Nuffield Research Unit in the History of Ideas. It is entitled "The Foundations of Scientific Policy". He points out that we already have a very high powered scientific policy body, the A.C.S.P. but that it is a sort of pre-Keysian body, a committee of bankers and merchants rather than of professional economists.
Its members are busy men with full-time jobs as heads of important scientific laboratories administrators of research councils, or in industry: they are, indeed, chosen specifically for their practical working acquaintance with science and technology. As a result, their recommendations are inevitably based on a comparison of 'shop floor opinions' rather than on any coherent analysis. In accordance with a well known British prejudice, this is sometimes presented as the great virtue of the system. Meanwhile, for lack of any profound analysis of the factors involved, we remain largely in the dark about the 'mechanics' of scientific and technological growth. To many people, accordingly, it still seems that intellectual and technical advances either take place spontaneously and unpredictably"—
and this, I believe, is the noble Lord's view—
or else are at the mercy of some 'climate of opinion', compounded unanalysably from intellectual, psychological, social, and economic variables—like the old-time all-purpose economic concept of 'business confidence'.
The result of all this is that decisions on scientific policy are still taken in a somewhat rule of thumb way. This, it seems to me, is an impossible situation in an era when the very rate of growth of scientific discovery means that we are now compelled for the first time to select those areas which we can afford to follow up and deliberately leave others without support. Dr. Toulmin's suggestion is for a Research Institute for the Foundation of Scientific Policy on the lines of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research; attached to a university and supported by public funds.
I am very much in favour of this idea and I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration. But we cannot wait for its findings before we have a radical reform of the Ministry of Science on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
I would particularly like to emphasise that in our view a great deal of these decisions particularly in the applied and technological fields must follow an economic analysis on which the Government's economic policy must be based.
I turn now to the problem of medical research. I think that there is general agreement that funds are inadequate in this field, but this is not the whole trouble. I have found many medical research workers who have an ambivalent attitude towards the Medical Research Council, but the one thing on which they all agree is that it has been imaginative and far-seeing in some of the men and work which its supports. This is demonstrated by the imposing record of Nobel Prize winners which it has backed. But they find in it a certain stuffiness. They have a fear of a small monopoly body concerned both with bargaining with Ministers and civil servants and with relations with universities. They fear this body as being the one source of advice for all these purposes. It has been suggested that the Medical Research Council and is administration should be enlarged and departmentalised into sub-divisions and that there should be a separation of the function of getting funds and of general administration from the job of framing policy for the distribution of grants. In the case of the latter—that is to say, the distribution function—the medical secretary should have the assistance of senior members of the different branches of the profession who would maintain contact with the developments and needs of universities and research units throughout the country.
One of the problems about medical research, and particularly about the Medical Research Council, is the relationship with the universities. In the last few years the Council has developed a policy of supporting a line of work for three years and then expecting the university to take it over. This overlooks the fact that universities are entirely independent in the allocation of

the funds which they receive from the University Grants Committee.
Medical research in universities suffers from two factors. The first is the tendency among clinicians, including clinical professors, to despise research workers. This, of course, is a common feature in many professions in this country, for there is a tendency on the part of those who practise to despise those who do research. This is particularly serious in medicine.
The second arises from the fact that the Government are the main employers of doctors. The number of students who need to be admitted to the medical faculties can be estimated—and in the past it has been underestimated. In 1960–61 the medical students represented only 8 per cent. of the total students in universities. This low figure supports the resentment in universities at the size of, and the amount of money required by, the medical faculties, apart altogether from the salary question, which also causes a certain amount of resentment. This leads to resistance to increasing the research grants which have to come out of the general grant made to universities.
All these factors are, I believe, harmful to the development of medical research, and they form one of the causes for much of the serious emigration of medical research workers to the United States. This is a difficult problem on which I should like to make one or two suggestions. The first is that we need a university research council as part of the method of giving grants for medical research and other research. Secondly, the Government in some way should build and endow small but antonomous medical research institutes within the precincts of teaching hospitals. I emphasise the word "autonomous", because they should not come under the Medical Research Council.
Another important means that should be used to increase the incentive for the best men to stay in this country and to continue in research, which applies not only to medicine but to other fields as well, would be to increase the number of professorships and not confine these just to heads of departments; one could use these posts simply as university grades, as they are in the United States and as they are becoming in some universities in this country already.
The third subject with which I want to deal is the basic subject of raising the technological level of British industry and ensuring that we remain in the technological forefront. This, after all, is the foundation of everything else, without which we shall not achieve the economic expansion and without which we shall not be able to give any reality to the social programme which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned or do any of the other things which we all think are desirable.
There is a clear inference in the F.B.I. report that many firms, both large and small, are not able to take advantage of the results of research. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to this. It is because, as the F.B.I. pointed out, the heads of the firms are not research-minded, and this is because a large number of them have no qualifications either in science or in engineering. Indeed, many of them have no higher education at all. We have, I suppose, among our industrial leaders some of the most uneducated in any advanced industrial country in the world. This does not mean that we have not a number of well-known firms, some large and some small, with highly-educated directors, but the truth of the matter is that a large part of our industry is virtually uneducated.
There is no immediate answer to the problem of how to deal with the firms to which the F.B.I, has referred. I agree with the F.B.I. suggestion that they must be by-passed, even if this means discrimination in favour of other individual companies in the support which we give. This is clearly recognised in their evidence to the Trend Committee, which is published in the F.B.I. report.
As the F.B.I. has now said, and as many of us on both sides of the House have been saying for many years, we need a much more energetic policy of civil development contracts to advance new technologies and not simply to help lame dogs. This means that a contract must be given to the firm or organisation best able to undertake the development, even if the firm does not happen to be within the industry with which the project is concerned. A great deal of engineering research and development can be undertaken by any well-equipped

organisation—and I do not mean only well-equipped in buildings and plant, but also well-equipped in scientists and technologists. In fact, this is the way in which we should be able to use the teams built up for defence purposes as defence research and development expenditure is reduced.
Since I last spoke on this subject I have come to support the view that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research should be divided. The problem of placing development contracts in industry and of getting greater technological drive in management requires an entrepreneurial approach which is quite different from that of many research directors, although we all know some who have it. I would go further than the F.B.I. First of all, I believe that wherever suitable, which is in practically every case, Government research units should be attached to the appropriate Ministries, which is a reversal of the policy decided on just after the war. This, I believe, would not only improve the general scientific outlook of the Departments themselves, but would also and, at the same time, raise the status of the chief scientists or chief engineers in the Departments and ensure that they had adequate support when they were putting forward their views. I also believe that no major policy decision should be taken by a Minister without the chief scientist or chief engineer being present at the discussion. Their views should not be heard only at secondhand via the administrative civil servants.
Secondly, I believe that research associations or research units concerned with manufacturing industry should be the responsibility of a Ministry for industry and technology, or at least a much more powerful industrial section of the Board of Trade. Perhaps the best idea, however, would be to base such a department on the existing Ministry of Aviation, recreating the old Ministry of Supply, which was an admirable Department for carrying out this sort of work. I believe that it should be responsible for the National Research Development Corporation and it might well be for consideration whether it should be responsible for the reactor and engineering divisions of the Atomic Energy Authority, although these would possibly be better placed under the Ministry of Power. There is a case for looking at the


organisation of the Atomic Energy Authority and seeing whether it would be an advantage to divide the research from the reactor development.
Such a Ministry or such a Department would have to work very closely with the National Economic Development Council which would have the job of identifying the areas of the greatest economic potential for this country's future. Acting within this general guidance, I believe that such a Ministry should be assisted by a strong group of technologists and economists who must be working on the job at least half of their time and who cannot just be advisers meeting only once a month. It would be their job to seek out projects to support and firms or research units with which to place such projects.
These technologists should not be research scientists but men trained in the scientific habit of thought who have begun to achieve success in industrial management or the direction of research in a technically advanced firm or Government organisation. I say "begun to achieve success" because we want men of a suitable age—I will not mention any age—who still have the drive, energy and imagination to carry out this sort of work. They must meet at least several days a month and must be supported by a strong secretariat.
As a result of their work, development contracts should be placed wherever they can best be carried out, including Government establishments and not excluding defence establishments. I strongly support the view of my hon. Friend about the defence research establishments and the need to make use of them as the expenditure on defence research falls. I have in mind bodies such as the Royal Aircraft Establishment, or the Royal Radar Establishment, and others.
It may be that some industrial research associations would be suitable for development contracts of this sort, and this might be a better method of giving support to them than a grant matched to the industrial contributions, particularly in associations covering a number of industries, none of which feels responsible for supporting them.
Another suggestion has been put forward by one or two of the colleges of advanced technology. It is that when

the colleges are rebuilding on their new sites, as some of them are, they should have a sort of industrial estate on the perimeter round the colleges in which, with some Government assistance, advanced types of factories in which development contracts could be placed should be established. This would have the double advantage of starting up new industries based on development contracts and having them in close association with a teaching institution. Some of the basic research could be done in the colleges and some of the people working on the development contracts in the firms, would help by teaching in the colleges. This would maintain that connection between colleges and industry which is so essential.
I realise that by suggesting this removal of the industrial research and development side of D.S.I.R's work from the Minister for Science, I am open to the criticism that I am suggesting that we should break the continuum between pure and applied research and thereby continue, and even enlarge, the present lower prestige in which applied work and technology are held compared with pure science. I do not think that this is so, but I think that it would still be necessary to have overall co-ordination and advice on this subject. In my view, the Minister for Science should chair a top-level committee covering all the Departments, including the Defence Departments, with substantial; scientific and technological interests. We need a new attitude to this problem. I do not think we shall get it if we rely on a Minister for Science mainly concerned, or largely concerned, with pure science and granting funds for scientific research.
What we are envisaging now is a radically new technico-economic operation which involves national planning and Government intervention to encourage innovation and expansion on an unprecedented scale. After what has been published both by the Conservative Party and by the F.B.I., as well as after the speeches we have had during the last two or three years from hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons, I had expected from the Parliamentary Secretary a much greater realisation of what is now being demanded. I found no such realisation. He seemed to have no comprehension of what is needed.


What we are now doing seemed to him to be quite good enough; we are to go on just as we are, with a few changes here and there and with a few extra hundred thousand pounds given here and there. His attitude was that it would all come out all right. The Parliamentary Secretary has not begun to understand what it is that is causing so much criticism in all parts of British scientific and industrial life, not only in the House of Commons. I do not therefore think that it will be possible for the Government to make the changes that are needed; they will have to be left for another Government to carry out.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) towards the end of his speech saw some correspondence between the speech I made in the science debate two years ago and the recent report published by the F.B.I. He went so far as to suggest that I might possibly have been the author of the F.B.I. report. Any influence that I have exercised on the F.B.I, report is extremely indirect. I gave evidence to the F.B.I. Committee. I submitted my views. I was able to comment on its draft. For the rest, if there is indeed any correspondence between anything I may have said and the F.B.I. report, I can only regard it as one of those fortuitous favours which occasionally lighten the lonely path of the pioneer. Naturally, I am duly grateful.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East made a plea for a great expansion in the volume of our expenditure on research and development. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science replied by pointing to the quite considerable increases which have taken place over the last five or six years. Both are right. The figures are, on the surface, most impressive. There has been an increase of about 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. a year, making our expenditure on research and development equivalent to about 3 per cent. of our gross national product, a similar ratio to that existing in the United States. The hon. Member for Coventry, East is quite right in saying that this is still inadequate for our needs because, as I see it, this country faces

certain economic problems not faced by other countries. For instance, we have a stationary labour supply. Then, possibly the most formidable of all, we have limited exchange reserves, although we attempt to run an international currency. This limitation of the reserves always threatens to be an impediment to any sustained programme of capital investment.
These facts seem to me to indicate that, despite any comfort we may derive from the figures, we need to pay greater attention to innovation, to research and development, than other countries. None the less, I accept what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary says, that the increase is such that the demands over the next few years may out-run the technological manpower available. For that reason, I do not want this afternoon to talk about volume. I suggest that the more important subject has become that of the pattern of our scientific effort. I want this afternoon to advance the broad point that the nature, or the pattern, or the distribution, of our scientific effort is not sufficiently related to our economic and commercial problems, and that what we need to do is to make our scientific effort more productive by securing a closer relationship between research, on the one hand, and economic application, on the other hand.
Take, for instance, defence research and development. It is sometimes said—it is the conventional thing to say—that defence research and development is good because it gives results of civil usefulness. This was true, but I suggest that it has become less and less true, or, rather, that our defence needs are becoming so specialised that the time interval between the undertaking of a piece of defence research and development and the emergence of results of civil usefulness is lengthening.
This is a problem which does not affect this country only. It is a problem which the United States are just beginning to appreciate. It is for this reason that any country which devotes a substantial part of its scientific effort to defence, as we do, is at a disadvantage compared with countries which direct their scientific effort much more closely to their economic problems. So I suggest that the gap between our defence scientific effort and economic usefulness is widening.
For this reason—here I join the hon. Members for Coventry, East and Edmonton (Mr. Albu)—we need to pay much greater attention to closing the gap which also exists between our civil scientific effort and its economic usefulness. Those who have spoken in the debate so far have referred to the classic illustration of this gap, the fact that in this country arts are "U" but science not so "U", and that within science pure scientists are "U" but applied scientists and technologists are not so "U". This is our problem.
In dealing with this problem the Government—and, I think, any Government, whatever their complexion—are in a peculiar difficulty. The problem is a problem of our social system. It is the bias in our social system. The scientific arrangements which the Government operate also reflect fee bias in the social system. Any Government are inevitably driven to defend the arrangements they run, but by defending them they make change much more difficult. I suggest that this is what is happening.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East referred to the recent book by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council entitled, Science and Politics. The first chapter of the book gives a graphic description of the system as it now is. I will quote one or two sentences from it.
The thinking behind the creation of these Councils"—
that is, the Medical Council, the D.S.I.R. and so on; and I ask the House to note the following words:
is to separate the activity of research from the executive business of Government and economic activity.
In another part in the first chapter, after pointing out that all genuine science has its origin, in the intellectual curiosity of the free human spirit, the Lord President writes:
I am tempted to speculate whether, in the end, the influence of an interest by Government … materially motivated will not obscure the very insights on which creative science is essentially based.
In other words, as the hon. Member for Coventry, East pointed out, my noble Friend the Lord President is afraid lest increasing Government interest in science will kill the scientific spirit. I am sure that none of us wants to do that. However, I respectfully suggest that in

laying so much weight on this problem my noble Friend is laying eloquent emphasis on precisely the wrong problem.
The problem of politics is the perpetual and difficult search for a balance between liberty and authority. The problem of science is equally the perpetual and difficult search for a balance between research and application. In our case, the search for a balance requires a move in the direction of application.
It may be I do not know, that in the Soviet Union the desirable move is the other way round. It is possible that the Soviet Union should move more in the direction of greater freedom of fundamental research; but this is not our problem. In our case to oppose the abstraction of authority on the one hand, with the abstraction of complete freedom on the other, could result in inaction. This is a negation of government. Government is not a debate in abstractions; it is movement or action—and we must move in the direction of greater application. How are we to do it?
We in this country operate and, I think, will continue to operate, a free economic system. If we want to be an affluent society we must give a fair degree of freedom to individual consumers. This is affluence. It means, however, that a government cannot use private demand to determine a desirable pattern of research and development. A government must use its own demand, which at the moment is about 40 per cent. of total demand and, I suppose, is likely to go on increasing.
The hon. Member for Edmonton spoke of civil development contracts, which appertain mainly to private demand and not to Government demand. I have expressed my views on this in the past. I am all for expansion in this direction but, expand civil development contracts as we may, this instrument will always be subordinate or subsidiary to the instrument of Government demand. In this context of trying to make government demand push things more in the direction of application, I make three suggestions.
First, I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton that we must reverse the tradition by which, to quote the Lord President, we
… separate the activity of research from the executive business of Government and economic activity.


We must build up scientific units within the executive organs of government and, in so far as the relevant work is now done outside in the D.S.I.R., little by little this must be brought back within the Executive organs. I will give two examples of this. I was struck some months ago when listening to the debate on Dr. Beeching's Report. The great question was what to do about the motor car. Some wanted to accept it and others wanted to confine it. I see the answer as being that we must accept the motor car but, in accepting it, we must recognise that we suffer in this country from much greater limitations of space than do other countries.
This presents a tremendous research and development problem. As far as I know there is no such thing as a scientific unit within the Ministry of Transport. There is only one Governmental unit remotely capable of handling this problem—and that is dealing with the fringes of it. It is the Road Research Laboratory, a department of the D.S.I.R. We need a scientific unit to deal with the essentials of the problem within the Ministry of Transport and, as that is created, the Road Research Laboratory should be moved to it.
My second example is that of education; and the hon. Member for Coventry, East emphasised this. In the first industrial revolution we had a small educated elite and a large working class to operate the machines. We are now moving into the age of automation. We now need a large educated class capable of feeding problems into the machines, which then work themselves. This requires an explosive expansion of our education.
As a rough measure of what we need today I believe I am right in saying that 1 per cent. of our population enjoys a three-year university course. In the Soviet Union 3 per cent. of the population enjoys a five-year university course. This is an enormous problem. We shall never have enough teachers to match it and this means that we must do a great deal of research and development into educational techniques and devices; and the construction of programmes for feeding into new devices. I agree that we have research going on in the Ministry

of Education, but I doubt whether it is nearly adequate to the scope of this gigantic problem.
Secondly, the Government in general or, possibly, the Treasury in particular, should abandon the practice by which it buys equipment such as computers on the open market—off the shelf at the lowest possible price. This is a relic of the mercantile age. What research and development does to industry is to lengthen the time scale over which economic calculations are made. What is profitable today does not necessarily make for profit tomorrow. Industry must look forward in time.
If the scientific age imposes this on industry it must equally impose it on the Government. It means that what it cheap today will not necessarily be so tomorrow. The Government which today buys computers off the shelf at the lowest possible price may be failing to develop a computer technology and may, therefore, be impairing their revenue in the long term. The Government also must look forward in time, particularly from the point of view of their buying policy.
My third suggestion concerns the universities and I appreciate that I am treading on hallowed ground. In the United States the Government—both their defence departments and their civil departments—place research contracts with universities. We scarcely do that and I suggest that we should. I have no doubt that we will encounter resistance from the universities. They will say that if they receive money for contracts from the Government that will determine the direction of their scientific effort. The real answer to this is that even in universities the research which is actually concerned with pushing back the frontiers of knowledge is limited. Few people are pushing back these frontiers. Much the greater part of even university research is concerned with application. What I suggest we should be out to do is to make the connection with application a little closer and a little more direct. Nobody wants to see the Government wholly determine the pattern of university research but, equally, it would be wrong to see university research too divorced from application. We ought to try to secure a balance.
That is all I want to say about the Government as a buyer, about Government Departments buying from a private economic system, and I want now to turn to the question of the central Government organisation for science, because this is, I suppose, the main subject under consideration by Sir Burke Trend's Committee, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that other speakers will comment on this subject, because it would be nice to think that the House of Commons was, for once, returning to its historic function of playing a part in the shaping of a decision to be made, and not just tramping through the Division Lobbies, "yea-ing" and "nay-ing" decisions that are, in fact, beyond alteration.
We have, as we know, a Ministry for Science—the emphasis is on the word "for". I thought that the hon. Member for Coventry, East gave quite a fair interpretation of the philosophy behind this concept of the Ministry for Science. That concept is, as I understand it, that the Government should aid, should encourage, should promote science, but that it should play a minimal part, the very slightest part, in determining the direction in which science ought to go. I believe the conclusion to be irresistible that the Government must play a much larger part in determining the direction in which science should go than was conceded four years ago, when the Ministry for Science was established.
I have two reasons for believing that. The first is that, as we have heard this afternoon, it looks as though over the years to come our scientific demands will outrun the scientific resources available. Demand and resources need to be matched, the Government must try to match them and in doing so, inevitably, to a certain extent, determine the direction in which science goes.
Secondly, I think that we have a problem of balance in our scientific effort—a balance between the defence effort and the civil effort, a balance between research and application, a balance between one industry and another. There is only one body to do anything in the way of attempting to secure that balance, and that is Government. For these reasons, I believe that we need much more than a Ministry for Science—aiding, promoting, and encouraging science. We

must have a Ministry "of" Science and, since the problem is one of balance, that Ministry of Science should be concerned both with academic science and industrial application—as, indeed, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is at this moment.
What should this Ministry of Science be? That is a difficult question. Leaving aside all the details and trying to come to the essentials, we have a choice between two courses. We can have, as now, a very small Department—a "bus load of staff" as we have heard it described—and try to strengthen it with a hierarchy of advisory councils. We could strengthen the Lord President of the Council's Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, try to make its composition a little less academic, and have under it, as the F.B.I report suggested, a steering board for industry.
That is ore possibility, and that would be perfectly all right if the problem were only one of apportioning resources between one part of science and another and one industry and another, but the problem is much more than that. The problem is one of improving communication between one part of the scientific spectrum and another; in other words, it is a problem on infusing technology with science and science with technology.
I do not believe that this can be done through the medium of advisory committees which are, after all, collections of private individuals, not served by a working staff, and operating only an policy in its broad generality. This work of infusion, of informing science with technology and technology with science, can be done only at the working level; in other words, it can be done only by a staff, with the advisory councils ancillary to the staff and not the staff ancillary to the advisory councils, which is what we would have if we merely attached one or more advisory bodies to the existing Ministry of Science. We need, then, a staff, and I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton that there is only one place where the staff is available, and that is in the Ministry of Aviation.
I therefore return to the thought that has been in my mind, which came into my mind some six years ago, and which the passage of the years has not really shaken—that what we really need is a marriage of the scientific functions of the


Ministry of Aviation with the scientific functions of the Lord President of the Council, or if hon. Members prefer it, the functions of the Minister for Science, so that we create a new Ministry of Science and Technology—and I emphasise the word "technology"—with a wide remit, of which the doing of research and development for the defence Services is only part and, I hope and believe, a diminishing part.
I know that many people will recoil from that suggestion, I am perfectly well aware of all the difficulties, but I have been driven to adhere to this proposal because of the very nature of the problem we face. The problem of science in this country is the bias in the social system. What we did four years ago when we established the Ministry for Science was to defer to that bias and, by deferring to it, we made it much more difficult to escape from it.
In whatever sphere it may be, whether it be science or anything else, if we are confronted with a deep-seated social attitude that is out of accord with the times, the only thing to do is to make a bold organisational change which will give a powerful push in the opposite direction. That is what was needed four years ago, to my mind, we still need it, and the Trend Committee may give what may possibly prove to be a final chance of doing something about it. I hope that this time we shall take it.

Mr. Dan Jones: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, I should like to ask him whether he will follow the logical outcome of a very interesting contribution by joining us in the Division Lobby tonight.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I never anticipate difficult decisions.

5.58 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I remember hearing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) speak in the first of our science debates three years ago, and I remember being just as impressed then as I have been this evening by what he had to say. It is a pity, in a way, when we had a tremendous challenge thrown down to the Parliamentary Secretary by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Grossman) that we had to wait

before the glove was picked up, as it were, by the right hon. Gentleman, who took it up only to show how much he agreed with all that had been said in the making of the challenge.
It is unfortunate, perhaps, that the Parliamentary Secretary does not share the liking for philosophy that the noble Lord, his senior colleague, has. The noble Lord, I know, would very much enjoy picking up this challenge and tackling the philosophical issues behind it. If I may say so, the Parliamentary Secretary is very clever at side-stepping and what he did today, as he has done in other scientific debates, was to give us a long record of the ways, as he put it, in which the Government are trying to mitigate the various problems, without, however, coming to grips with the central issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East so clearly did, and as the right hon. Gentleman has equally done.
I remember that three years ago, when the right hon. Member for Hall Green suggested that there should be a merging of the technical side of the Ministry of Aviation into a strengthened Ministry of Science, that in that debate I suggested that there was a real need for bringing the activities of science into every Government Department. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers it. I did not, however, formulate the suggestion in as precise a way as he did this evening.
Whether we are dealing with the problems of transport, education, housing, pensions and the demographic changes in population—whatever the Government's activity—there is a tremendous need for scientific examination of the issues and an acceptance of the facts and the collection of further facts if there are not enough. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that to do this effectively what is needed is the creation of units in each Government Department. I hope that later today we shall have serious comment from the Government Front Bench on this proposal. I hope that it will not be forgotten and left to be brought up again in another year by back benchers on both sides of the Committee.
I think that what the Office of the Minister for Science is suffering from at the moment—and the Parliamentary Secretary has found it difficult to get


away with today—is the sins of omission which are catching up with it. It is so easy for sins of commission, the bad things which the Government do directly and positively, to be seized upon and examined and for publicity to be given to them, so that everybody knows exactly what has gone wrong. But in science, and particularly in so far as we are concerned today with what is happening to so many of our brighter scientists which our universities have been producing, we are concerned not so much with something wrong that the Government have done, but with their failure to do a great many things which they ought to have done.
I feel that this results from the fact that the Government, in adopting the attitude of the noble Lord that the functions of a Department for Science is to create the conditions in which free scientific activity can flourish, have failed to see that science is right at the heart of all economic activity of the nation. In failing to do that, the Government have been misled by their own philosophical attitude towards the whole process of economic activity. If we are to say that science is at the centre of any prospect we may have of making an economic recovery, and that we cannot achieve any of the things which the N.E.D.C. says we should achieve unless we put scientific development and technological ideas at the centre of our planning programmes, we are faced with a series of logical consequences which lead us to the kind of intervention in the freedom of British industry which the party opposite conventionally and traditionally opposes. This is why there is this blockage in the Department for Science.
The philosophy of the noble Lord the Minister for Science is perfectly natural, as expressed in his book. It is a Conservative attitude towards science in the correct sense of that word "Conservative". We cannot expect the kind of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East today or even the kind of attitude which the right hon. Member for Hall Greeen proposes without also accepting responsibility to intervene in the economic processes of the nation and take planning to a stage which the party opposite cannot accept. It would be un-Conservative and out of keeping with Conservative philosophy if hon. Members opposite

were to have any other view. This needs to be made clear.
I remember once, on a previous occasion, being accused of introducing too much direct politics into a debate on science, but to me the process of politics today is inseparable from the process of science. I would say that it is impossible to conceive of a Government composed of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, whoever might lead them and whatever their new ideas, departing sufficiently from the general background of their philosophy towards science and economics to do anything more than a mere patching-up operation.
The most grave example of the Government's failure in this respect has been the emigration of scientists. I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was a little superficial in his consideration of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East. The Parliamentary Secretary said, first, that American education is so much worse than ours that we must accept the fact that the Americans need our scientists. He said to me later that he would be discussing whether or not we could spare them, but he never did so. He also said that we had to consider the net rates of emigration and immigration.
The hon. Gentleman went on to paint a little picture, on a very unreliable canvas. He said that we know certain things about the scientists who emigrate but not about those who immigrate and therefore we could assume that the figures balanced that all was well. This was the most unscientific assessment of the situation one could possibly have. It reminds me of Dr. Beeching's comments on the railways. I remember equally being shocked when Dr. Beeching, to put the record straight, explained that if he had been asked to carry out a survey of the roads similar to that of the railways he knew—before carrying it out—that he would have been even harsher on the railways.
This tendency on the part of those concerned with science and scientific problems to set up an experiment and predetermine the result is quite extraordinary. This is what the Parliamentary Secretary was doing with the figures which he produced today. The report of the Royal Society makes clear a point which was not touched upon by


the Parliamentary Secretary. It is not only a question of numbers. There can be some degree of uncertainty about numbers but what is more important is the quality of the people emigrating.
The Royal Society's report says:
The fact that all the emigrants discussed here had a Ph.D degree means that they belong to an élite fraction of our university graduates. Several heads of departments have remarked … that we seem to be losing an unduly high proportion of our best people.
In the sums which the Parliamentary Secretary did we did not know the figures of those who immigrated. We can only assume that they were sufficient to balance those who emigrated, but the hon. Gentleman made no reference to quality. We are losing the people who should be the spearhead of university research in so many crucial fields for the next ten, twenty, or thirty years.
The reasons why we are losing them have been indicated already today. I want to refer to some of the extraordinary comments which were made in correspondence, mainly in The Times, in January and February this year which followed the revelations about how many people were going abroad. I want to refer not only to what was said but to the people who were saying these things, which is equally important. Professor Jones, Professor of Physics in the University of London, had this to say:
Not only do about 12 per cent. of new Ph.D.s go abroad, but it is the most adventurous, energetic and gifted who do so. The loss of Britain is thus far more serious than mere numbers suggest.
The writer went on to say that one of the reasons why they chose to go to America was that in Britain
In many fields they will find themselves frustrated in their work also, unable to acquire the research equipment which they need. If they return … to industrial posts here they will be shocked at the contrast in outlook, at the tentative attitude towards undertaking forward-looking research and towards application of the results of such research.
Those words were written by a professor of physics at London University.
Somebody who is now a member of the staff of the University of Ottawa, a member of the Faculty of Pure and Applied Science, said:
Many British universities are hierarchical in structure and intensely conservative. Research facilities and prospects of advancement for junior staff are often very poor

indeed. After the freedom of opportunity found in North America the pill is often too bitter to swallow.
A group of people who are working in the United States at the moment say:
We submit that the departure of so many British scientists for the United States is not due to any act of theft by the United States, but is due to an act of neglect on the part of Britain. The important difference between the two countries is not to be found in the respective merits of their educational systems but in the extent of facilities provided for the employment of the scientists which they produce.
They go on to say:
May we suggest that rather than blaming the United States, the Minister for Science should put his own house in order.
These are statements made by some of the people involved. Another person who made a similar statement is the Vice-Chancellor of Manchester University; indeed, there is a whole host of eminent people.
The conclusions that these people drew were all exactly the same—that there was this scrabbling around for money for facilities and equipment, that there was this spending of so much time in trying to raise the money to support an additional research student so that the work could go on, that there was the desperation and struggling and, indeed, the need to limit possible extensions of research because of the limitations of accommodation. Heads of departments in Britain have told me that they could not extend their research although there were plenty of the first-class ideas and first-class people, of whom the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken, simply because they did not have any more cubic feet of space in which to put more people.
Equally important—and this is something which is a direct responsibility of the Government just as the other matters are—is the fact that there are no promotion opportunities. What is so urgently needed, if we are not to have even more of our best people going abroad, is the creation of more senior posts inside university departments so that a bright young man may look to some advancements prospects in his own country without having to engage in what is an agonising struggle of conscience.
This is a point which has not emerged sufficiently in this debate. There are many young men who want to stay in Britain because they feel that the future


of this country demands work that they can do, people who feel their loyalties here, who want to serve the community in which they have grown up and which has given them their education, and who are faced with this dilemma—choosing between their public conscience or serving their own families in the best possible way. They have this dilemma to which they have to find some kind of solution.
I wish more of our younger scientists allowed their public consciences to come out on top. It is not particularly creditworthy—I say this sincerely—when a young scientist will not stick it out here and goes for higher pay and the easier job in America. Indeed, one of the best sentences written on this subject appeared in the Guardian on 25th February, from one of my own colleagues on the Executive Committee of the Associaton of Scientific Workers. He wrote of an offer that he had had from America to take his team there. He said:
I have spent too much of my life trying to help to improve the conditions of scientists in my own country to take this easy way out, or to encourage my colleagues to do so.
He went on to say what the temptations were.
The Parliamentary Secretary must accept that even though it is true that the Government are spending more on research and on the universities now than they were six or seven years ago, this does not mean that they are free from blame. It does not excuse the Government from the responsibility of not having spent enough on the universities and on research. I am amazed when Government spokesmen, whether they are talking about housing, pensions, education or whatever it is, refer with pride to the fact that we are spending more on some field of public activity than we were six years ago.
What a very odd country it would be—even odder than it is at the moment—if we were not doing so and if a Government spokesman were to say that we spent less this year than we did six years ago on education. The point is whether we have spent a sum commensurate with needs or with the advance in the national product. This we have not done.
Where the Parliamentary Secretary is making a mistake is in thinking, as indeed the right hon. Member for Hall Green was, that science can be regarded

as one compartment on which Government money has to be spent. He referred to hon. Members on this side of the Committee saying that they were going to give priority in spending to so many aspects of State activity. What he does not appreciate is that the first priority has got to be the economic health of the nation and what is needed to promote it, in order that we may have the products of greater national wealth to spend on education, housing and so forth.
Science, and spending on science, encouraging the application of scientific ideas in industry, encouraging new technological processes and encouraging scientists to stay in Britain rather than to go abroad—this is the crucial and central part of reviving the economy of Britain in order that we may become the kind of nation which can afford to spend far more on housing, education, pensions and the rest.
We have got to earn our standard of living, and what the Government are doing is refusing this country the opportunity of earning the standard of living that its people want. The Government are doing this by being short-sighted, by adopting what is essentially a Conservative philosophical attitude towards the organisation of science in this country, and they are doing it by continually disposing of the central problem to committees. The Trend Committee is considering many of these matters, but do the Government really need the Trend Committee to tell them how important science is, or to tell them that the scientists must be given the central place in our economy and in the sphere of social values which we adopt? Of course not. It is a complete evasion of responsibility for the Government to wait for the Trend Committee to report before dealing with these points.
I want to deal with one ancillary and, in a way, a more minor point but one which is perhaps symptomatic of the Government's attitude. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the increased grant that is going to be given to the universities to support research students. He spoke also of the increased number—I think he said 100—of D.S I.R. research studentships that are going to be introduced in the autumn. I want to tell the House about one little argument that I have been having with the Parliamentary Secretary


over the last few months concerning what happens to research students who have to exist on D.S.I.R. grants.
The Government believe—indeed, they have written into the regulations governing D.S.I.R. studentships at our universities—that there is something slightly immoral about a young man wanting to marry and have children before he is 25 years old. If he marries before he is 25, he will get no marriage allowance for his wife.
This may not be too bad, because the wife may be working and, if so, they can manage. If, however, they have the temerity to believe that parenthood should start before they are 25, they must live as one of the most "submerged tenth" poverty-stricken groups in the nation. When I discussed this matter with the Parliamentary Secretary, the one thing I said which shocked him was that his attitude was Calvinist. He did not like that.
But the idea that people must forgo the pleasures of marriage and of parenthood whilst in receipt of a Government grant to do scientific research when they are below the age of 25 is essentially Calvinist in approach. It is symptomatic of the Government's failure to wake up to the kind of society in which we are living, the kinds of young people whom we have around us and the kind of social pattern that operates in our society today.
I hope that since I spoke to the Parliamentary Secretary, he will have read the report of the Leeds survey, which shows that about 15 per cent. of postgraduate students are married but not in receipt of allowances because they are under the age of 25. Perhaps he has read the comments of the Cambridge Review on what it calls this ludicrous situation. I hope that in looking at the whole problem of financing university research, the hon. Gentleman will bear this aspect in mind as one of the anachronisms that should go.
What scientists need urgently is not so much to be given the U status as against the non-U status of which the right hon. Member for Hall Green spoke. I regard that as a little old-fashioned. It is not true except in the minds of a small and insignificant fraction of our society—perhaps a small section of the Establishment—which still gives greater status to classicists than to scientists.
In the minds of the majority of people, the scientists has a very high status. What seems so wrong to scientists in Britain is that the status which they merit and which is accorded to them by society is not matched by the status and respect which they are accorded by the Government. This, above all, is what needs to be corrected. We must indicate to our scientists that the whole future of Britain, the whole success of Socialist planning for a new Britain, will depend upon the kind of effort which they can contribute.
They know this in their minds and they want to hear it from people who are responsible for government. They will never hear it from right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and however much we might persuade them to rethink the philosophy of the Minister for Science they will have to wait until there is a change before they will hear it from the House of Commons.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: One does not have to share the Socialist philosopy of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) to recognise the need for reform in Government scientific organisation. I certainly intend to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, when he winds up the debate, to reply to what I consider to be some practical questions concerning this problem.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), in one of the very best of the many remarkable speeches which he has made in the House of Commons, said today that the real question was not the volume of research spending, but the pattern of scientific effort. The whole Committee will agree with that. I wish particularly to refer in that connection to the machinery of government and the part that government must play in regard to scientific organisation. As I have said, one does not have to be a Socialist to see that that is necessary. One can look at this in a different and in a practical way, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green said, government is action and action is what we require in the scientific field.
I wish to deal with that problem and also, at the end of my speech, to apply it to something which has always interested me and which I have often raised


in the House of Commons: namely, the contribution that the country must make in space research. This has a great deal to do with the reform of government organisation that we require in the scientific field.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, whom I congratulate upon his appointment and who is to reply to the debate, was chairman of a group which produced an important pamphlet entitled Science in Industry. It contains a great many recommendations which, I hope, the Government will implement. At least, I should like to know from him what they intend to do about those recommendations. I hope that I am not putting him "on the spot" too much in referring to his pamphlet. I prefer its more practical approach to that of Science and the Future of Britain which I read with great interest, published by the Socialist Party in 1961. Each of these pamphlets has the central theme that what is wanted is a new scientific organisation at Government level and a new look at the machinery of Government for handling it.
One of the suggestions contained in the pamphlet Science in Industry about which I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to reply tonight, and which has been mentioned also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green, is that every Government Department dealing with industry should have a new kind of scientific-economic staff to act as a forward-planning unit. I should like to know whether the Government are thinking of implementing this recommendation. I certainly like the idea of applying a scientific staff to other Government Departments, but I should like to see this done in other Government Departments than those connected with industry.
The pamphlet went on to say:
The need for such a staff is particularly apparent in the case of Departments placing contracts with industry, but we recommend that all Departments, including the Treasury, should have such a staff".
At the end of March, we had a debate about the future of Parliament and, to a certain extent, about the machinery of Government. It was said on that occasion that there was only one scientist attached to the Treasury. This was mentioned in connection with some of the

miscalculations which, unfortunately, had been made concerning aircraft and guided weapons. Is it the Government's intention to follow up these recommendations and to have an economic-scientific staff attached to Government Departments? If so, we ought to hear what part they envisage civil servants playing in it.
In the summary of recommendations, the pamphlet further states:
We envisage established civil servants devoting some part of their career to working on these staffs, but we recommend that the rest of the staff should be recruited in a way somewhat different to the normal civil servant.
There may well be people employed in Government scientific establishments who could take important jobs in the Civil Service for this purpose. In view of the recommendations contained in the pamphlet for which my right hon. Friend was responsible, I should very much like to hear his comments about this.
The other recommendation which is of great importance to those concerned with government is the suggestion that there should be a technical policy committee of the Cabinet which would decide the main lines of scientific policy related to military and economic strategy. My reason for asking these questions is that I wanted to apply them to something practical: that is, the need for this country to play an important part in space research.
We have heard a great deal today about the discouragement to our scientists and it has not been possible to work out from any of the figures which we have been given whether there is a net gain or loss. If, however, there is a lack of inspiration in space research, there will be a real danger that we lose some very good scientists. I drew the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation to this danger only last April in the debate on space research.
Space research is party the responsibility of the Minister for Science, although no one is clear to what extent his position differs from that of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Aviation and the Postmaster-General I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary say something today about new experimental work on satellites. Although good individual work is being done in this field of space research, we are drifting along


without any real object in view. We do not have any long-term objective in space research.
America is very far ahead in this field, and at the present time I believe that the French may well steal a march on us and perhaps act on their own. The real cause of this trouble is that there is no long-term objective. It is not a lack of scientific skill in industry or Government in this field. There is great interest in it, and great enthusiasm to get going. But why have the Government failed so far to have any long-term plan for their contribution towards space research?
Certainly, if there is no single Minister responsible for all space research, things will continue to drift. I should like my hon. Friend to answer this question when he replies tonight. There should be a Minister responsible for all these matters. This might well be linked with some of the suggestions about which we have heard this afternoon—some of which have gone too far, and some not quite far enough, in regard to what a future Minister for Science and Technology should do. Such a Minister as I am suggesting ought to be in the Cabinet, and, of course, he would be a member of the Technical Policy Committee of the Cabinet, a sound suggestion coming from my right hon. Friend's pamphlet, Science in Industry.
The present position is that, although the United Kingdom 3 satellite has been ordered and Blue Streak is on its way to testing in Australia, we have not made any real progress towards a basic philosophy in regard to space matters. What are the Government's objectives? That is what I really want to know and what I think many hon. Members want to know. The Government have made, we know, a generalised decision to take part in space communications, and they have also decided to take counsel with our partners in E.L.D.O. and perhaps with other Commonwealth and European countries which may be interested. I am quoting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation. But by the time that is done, France may well have gone ahead on her own and beaten E.L.D.O. to it.
I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to this matter as one of urgency. I would mention in this connection a handout which the United States Information Service has just issued on this

problem of communications satellites. It is dated 3rd July. America is now planning a multi-channel communications satellite:
which could prove a boon to developing nations with a low volume of communications traffic
and to:
open the door to high quality communications in remote areas.
That is the sort of traffic and the sort of plan that some of my hon. Friends and I have been advocating this country to take part in for the past three or four years. America already has the resources to be able to sell it to those countries. It is the sort of system that we ought to have taken part in.
So, although the question of the so-called brain drain remains undecided in terms of numbers and net gain or loss, I feel that this question of space research is extremely important. I know that my right hon. Friend and my noble Friend the Minister for Science are not the only Ministers involved. But when are the Government going to get some organisation into this field? This is a practical application of what many hon. Members have said in some very important speeches this afternoon. It applies very much to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green said. It is what we shall very soon need.
I shall be very grateful to have some answers to these problems of scientific effort and also to the practical questions about the form of the machinery. In what we have been putting forward this afternoon, we differ in methods and philosophy, but we all feel quite clearly that there must be some reform in the machinery of Government to this end.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. William Stones: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), in ably opening the debate, declared his ignorance of science and referred to the fact that there are few scientists in the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, I think we are all scientists to some extent. Ever since the beginning of mankind men have studied cause and effect. Otherwise, human society could never have developed as it has done. Everyone will agree that if we are to make further progress, we must pursue knowledge still further.
Despite the fact that, as I have said, every man is a scientist to some extent, there are, unfortunately, relatively few trained scientists in the world. The number is growing, in some countries more than others, but I think it true to say in the United Kingdom we are not keeping pace. I agree that there are different standards in various countries, and for that reason it would probably be unfair to make a comparison.
It has often been said that knowledge is power, and that the greater the knowledge, the greater the power. However, knowledge in itself will never overcome our difficulties as a nation or world problems. It is really the application of knowledge on which we depend, and if it is wrongly applied, it will be disastrous. Properly used, it can be of tremendous benefit to the people of the world.
It is deplorable that men so misuse science that in certain circumstances the civilised world could be destroyed at the drop of a hat. It is to be hoped that common sense will prevail in the end and that that will not come about. We would all agree, I am sure, that the efforts of scientists throughout the world should be directed to the benefit of mankind in general. It is a deplorable fact that, despite all the improvements in the standard of living brought about by scientists and technologists, half the people of the world are still living in abject poverty.
We in the highly developed countries of the West must be concerned about the under-developed parts of the world. Indeed, we are. However, in the present state of society I think that we must first concern ourselves with our own country. It has already been said that the more we do for ourselves in developing our society, the more able we shall be to afford assistance to the less fortunate.
We were once the leading industrial nation of the world, and we were that for many years. However, other countries followed our lead, and now they are our rivals and very keen competitors, and we are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with them in the world markets—in many cases on unfavourable terms. If we are to survive economically we must use to the very full our knowledge and technical ability.

Equally important, we must improve our knowledge and skill.
We shall have to keep pace at least with the world industrial progress. In recent years we have failed in this respect, for our share of world trade for manufactured goods has fallen year by year. So that we may make the necessary progress industrially there will have to be research into the use of materials, both old and new, and the designing of newer and better machines involving a highly technical content.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to some industries which are doing well in this respect. I want to make a very specific reference to the mining industry as a nationalised industry which has given rise to some sport on the benches opposite from time to time, but as a result of research and advancing technology in that industry, last year an 8 per cent. increase in productivity was achieved.
I recognise the difficulty of keeping pace with certain of our giant competitors, including the United States, the Soviet Union and Japan. But we cannot afford to spend less on research in proportion to each of them. It is absolutely vital that the money is spent in the best possible way because we have such limited resources.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the total amount spent last year—1961–62—in this country on research was £634 million, or about 2·7 per cent. of the gross national product, with the Government providing about 60 per cent. of the total. I am pleased to note that this was an advance on the previous year, when it was about £480 million. However, we must not forget that a large proportion was for defence.
I quite appreciate the necessity for defence research, but I believe that, if there were greater co-ordination between the allies in N.A.T.O., we should probably be able to maintain our defence effort at rather less expense. In any case, we must consider priorities and it is well understood that the more we spend on defence the less we have for other purposes.
I believe it is possible that, in all branches of scientific research, there is lack of co-ordination, resulting in greater cost and waste of effort. In a capitalist society it may be inevitable that scientists


engaged by huge industrial concerns will be working simultaneously on similar projects, keeping their progress secret. If that is the case, then again money and effort are wasted. However, I understand that more than 5,000 scientists and technologists are being sent to the World Petroleum Congress at Frankfurt-am-Main to discuss the latest techniques and equipment used in the oil industry. Such exchanges should be carefully considered in other industries, for that would be of benefit to us all.
There is also the necessity for greater research in medicine and related subjects. Recently, there were disturbances at a borstal institution for girls. We often complain about juvenile delinquency and how best to overcome it. Yet for twelve months these teen-age girls have been creating disturbances and all sorts of punishments have been used without effect. Psychiatric treatment can be of benefit to such people but there is no resident psychiatrist at this institution. Only on occasion does one visit the place.
I am told that there are not sufficient competent persons to provide treatment for all those people who are in need of psychiatric treatment. Indeed, there is a shortage of competent persons in many branches of science, and remedial action must be taken at once. There is great need for highly trained scientists and more of them. This means that we should be preparing boys and girls for scientific careers and we can only do that in the schools.
I make no apology for referring to education again, for it is of such great importance. I am not sure that we are doing enough. To gain admission to universities and colleges of advanced technology, applicants must have certain academic qualification which can only be gained at grammar schools and other schools with similar standards. Despite the 1944 Act, only a small proportion gain entry to such schools. I was disturbed to see in the Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, 1961–62, a table about graduate science and mathematics teachers. This showed that in grammar schools there were 433 more in 1959 than in 1958, but that there was only an increase of 242 in 1961. In all the grammar schools and secondary schools, we had, in 1959, an increase of

716 compared with 1958, but an increase of only 485 in 1961.
Everyone agrees that science and mathematics are fundamentally important. But even if they gain the necessary academic qualifications our young people cannot all get places in the universities. I am told that 50,000 children will qualify for admission to university this year, but that 20,000 of them will find that there are no places available. There must be greater improvement in our education system if we are to have the scientists and technologists that we need. In addition, it has been estimated that we shall need to produce 10,000 more teachers for our universities and technical colleges over the next four years—twice the number produced in the last four years. This is all quite apart from the drain to overseas of top level scientific manpower.
How are we to raise the number of university places from 111,000 to 150,000 by 1967 if we do not get a sufficient number of teachers in the universities? To remedy the situation, huge sums must be spent and it is no use anyone saying that we cannot afford it, for we must afford it. If we do not spend now, we will find it more difficult in a few years' time.
Advances in science and technology, among other things, have produced new industries, which means that a certain number of traditional industries and skills are contracting or finishing, and this could have very serious social consequences in certain circumstances. We must accept that possibility and prepare for it. The trade unions affected must be consulted and considered at all stages of the transition. If they have confidence in those guiding and managing the industrial machine, the workpeople affected will be more ready to respond. It is absolutely vital, therefore, that they should be consulted at all stages.
We have a Minister for Science, who also has a number of other posts. Whatever his capabilities, however enthusiastic he may be, I believe that with these other responsibilities it is impossible for him to direct our scientific affairs. From the benches opposite it has been suggested that direction of our scientific affairs is inadequate.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones)


suggested a further organisation, and his idea may well coincide with mine. I suggest that there should be a council of Ministers representing the various Departments, such as the Treasury, Defence, the Board of Trade, Education and Science, responsible for the planning and directing of research and development policy. This is the only way in which we are likely to overcome our great difficulties and retain our status in the world.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: This is the third summer debate on science which we have had in this Committee. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced a debate on science, I viewed the prospect with some dismay. Many scientists, not only in this country but throughout the world, read our debates. Not so many people are now reading HANSARD as at the peak period—I gather only about 25 per cent.—but in these debates in the House of Commons, and, for that matter, in another place, we are able to put our views on a wide variety of subjects. I had hoped that the net would be confined, but when the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) started his speech. I gathered that once again the debate would be far-reaching.
Because of the very nature of Parliament, our debates are inevitably diffuse and wide-ranging on subjects such as this, and the concise, methodical, analytical approach which surrounds the scientist in his own thinking and day-to day work is completely and equally inevitably absent in a debate in the House. Is it possible to define the theme of this debate so far? My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) spoke of scientific effort, but the problem is one of administration and development of science and research at national level and, more locally, in industry. This is the aspect of the subject with which I wish to deal.
Before analysing the problem of "machinery and government," raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), I should like to comment on the nature of the problem which faces Parliament itself. We have a Parliamentary and Scientific Committee,

which is an informal quorum where Members of Parliament of this House and of another place are able to meet scientists of distinction in a wide variety of scientific fields. At times, the Committee makes more formal studies of scientific problems, one of the more recent being that of research in industry. This Committee, therefore, is one way in which Members of both Houses are able to inform themselves objectively about the country's scientific problems.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee today are projecting their ideas about science in the future; but the first issue which must be resolved is the determination of how we as politicians, irrespective of party, can better apply our minds and thinking more analytically and with more understanding to the problems facing science and those administering our scientific effort. In essence, we are the critics. Our job, as Members of Parliament, is to watch the Executive, in this case my noble Friend the Minister for Science and the Parliamentary Secretary.
We can do this in other ways. During this last year there has been some criticism of the type of reactors that it has been decided to develop for ships. I was one of those privileged to take part in a parliamentary visit to the reactor division at Risley, where Sir William Cook outlined to us the nature of the work being done there. As a back bencher, I was able to see for myself the complexity and difficulty of the decision which had to be taken. If we as Members of Parliament can see that sort of thing once, we can see it several times.
I sometimes wonder whether in these debates we are but onlookers shouting from the touchlines and not ourselves making a real impact on scientific progress. Much of my own thinking on this subject was reiterated in a Conservative publication, Change or Decay—my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon was, with me, one of the joint authors. In it we tried to analyse the problems facing Parliament and the Government in an industrial society.
One of the ideas which we put forward was that of a specialist economic sub-committee. I know that many hon. Members do not favour such committees, but I submit that the detailed study of the administration of our scientific endeavour is a complex and painstaking


task. For that matter, so is the administration of a large company. The success of a large industrial undertaking, where many complex decisions are made, depends on the type of agenda presented to those making the decisions and the background papers to go with it. If it is vital for the administrators of a large company, then is it not vital for Members of Parliament to be similarly conditioned in this way? We as Members of Parliament must find a way not only of observing and shouting from the touchlines, as we are doing today, but of taking a more active and influential part in the progress of science.
At the same time, we must not forget the growing influence of outside bodies, such as the National Economic and Development Council, on science and scientific administration. N.E.D.C. has shown its interest in science and the education of future entries into the scientific field. If N.E.D.C. grows, as many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee hope it will, I am convinced that it will take over from Parliament many of the functions and much of the deployment of the administrative effort, covering the whole range of economic activities, and down to each section of industry.
Having said that, I now wish to turn to a survey of the scientific and industrial scene so far as it has been changed within the lifetime of this Parliament. There has been a change of almost dynamic proportions during the last five or six years. Yet, because we are living with it, we are hardly noticing that it is taking place. The hon. Member for Coventry, East spoke of demoralised scientists, but if we consider what is going on around us this surely is a description which cannot be accepted.
It is only the small instances which bring this home to the average citizen, but the measures taken since the Education Act, 1944, are bound to have their impact. The fact that we are opening approximately 500 schools a year and have made more than 2 million more school places available for our young children is bound to have its impact in the years to come, whether we like it or not. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that we were spending ten times on university building as we were

when the Prime Minister took office. Then again, there have been increases in the university population and we are making provision for a further increase. This has meant that the country has been training more scientists; and this is bound to have an impact on progress in our industry.
It was in the spring of 1961 that I was able, in Committee of Supply, to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair for a debate on capital investment in industry, and I wish now to refer to two points that I raised in that debate. The first was the need for increased inducements to industry to embark on a capital investment programme, that is, to apply our knowledge by putting in new equipment in our various industries. I emphasised the need for increased investment allowances, and in recent Budgets successive Chancellors have not only increased these allowances, but they have been more generous, but they have been consistent.
The second point I then stressed was the dilemma of many a company in this modern age when it is faced with investment in a capital project. Invariably, expenditure on new equipment and methods is justified, but capital investment on a vast scale without markets can be a headache to an industry, and to a single company. Immediately the capital investment has been incurred, there is a need to make a contribution towards the standing charges that go with that investment. If production is below maximum capacity, the investment can be an embarrassment. One industry which has invested in modern plant and equipment on a large scale is the steel industry, and at the moment it is faced with the problem of over capacity.
Another point that I wish to stress today is the impact of science on productivity by means of the introduction of automation and new processes into industry. In previous debates I have stressed the need to apply our knowledge in industry, and this point was made today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green. In an earlier debate on science I explained how new techniques and processes invariably helped to achieve higher productivity by cutting out many of the finishing operations in manufacturing the finished component from basic materials.
The general theme of today's debate has been more education, more scientists, higher pay for scientists to prevent the brain drain, and a demand for increased C.A.T.s. The disagreement between the two sides is about whether we are doing enough to cope with the problem. We need more scientists. I think that hon. Members on both sides agree about this, but this is not the end of the story; it is merely the beginning. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Stones) spoke about this when he referred to the impact of science on industry. Science by itself is of limited value. Its importance from the politican's point of view lies in the application of that science to our industries.
There is one aspect in which hon. Gentlemen opposite could give a bigger lead than they are giving at the moment. That is in facing the impact of this modern technology, which is the result of the endeavours of scientists, on our industries. The impact of this scientific knowledge will affect the way of life of ordinary people in ordinary industries. The application of new techniques and scientific inventions in the construction of new factories, the effect of good housekeeping at home, the provision of more power to each worker's elbow, all mean that we in this country will be able to turn out more work per man hour.
"Productivity pays" was a suitable title for an excellent publication produced by the Financial Times last week. The rationalisation of our industries, and particularly our nationalised industries, resulting in the application of new processes and discoveries, certainly brings about a higher output per man hour worked, but it presents us with the problem of redundancy and change within each industry. This could mean a reduction in the labour force, for example, in the mines, and the same could happen on the railways.
It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to shout for more science, but are they prepared to grasp the nettle of the consequences of applying this new knowledge on which we are spending so much money and to deal with the social and socialogical problems that are bound to arise? This point was raised in the debate last summer by one hon. Gentleman opposite following on what I said then.
The cry now is for science and more science, and it is a common one. Hon. Members, and hon. Gentlemen opposite particularly, will continue to shout the battle cry, 'Let us go forward; let us have more science" until the effect of this is felt in their constituencies, and then the cry becomes "Halt, we must go backwards and slow down this very advance that science is bringing about".
This is National Productivity Year and the application of science is but one of the tools which helps us to increase our productivity. What has been strangely lacking is a willingness to tackle the implications of scientific change when it involves the lives and livelihood of so many of us in this country. It is all very well to ask for more science in our way of life and in our jobs, but when it means facing the implications of the impact of the technological revolution which is sweeping across the country, we are only too ready to adopt a different attitude.
Having set this background to my observations, I wish to deal with the problem of research, research associations, and expenditure on them. I welcome the F.B.I.'s report, which is the second in just over eighteen months. The first part of this report is a memorandum to industry. Dealing with the ingredients that provide confidence, it says that the price and marketing methods will be right, and that the design and performance will be best in their class.
It is interesting to note that during the last seven years expenditure by British industry on research and development has risen from £68 million to £213 million. It is also interesting to note that expenditure on defence has dropped from 59 per cent. to 38·7 per cent., and that the Government's total expenditure has fallen from 74 per cent. to 60 per cent. while that of private industry has gone up from 22·8 per cent. to 33 per cent. There are three observations to make which I wish to note: first, that the speed of change—and I have said this before—is now so great that it is not open to us to adjust ourselves gradually. Secondly, there is little doubt that industry in general—and this point is made in the report—and the medium and small firms in particular, still have much to gain for themselves and for the industrial success of this country by the proper use


of development and research. This point was raised at the F.B.I. conference in April a year ago.
Thirdly, the F.B.I, says that it has sympathy with the smaller firms in this respect in not being able to afford much, if any, scientific staff of their own, but regret that there seem to be many who fail to make use of the willing help and advice which surrounds them. This is interesting, because the voice of industry is commenting on the fact that industry is collectively realising the extent of the responsibility it has to apply science in its day-to-day activities.
We have had a survey of the work of the 52 research associations, the number of which, as a result of the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary, have now been reduced. We know that £9 million is being spent by them, but this is a small part of the total expenditure on research. One thing which is clear is that both Government and industry have their separate responsibilities. I agree that pure research is still a State responsibility to a great extent, but applied research, which means applying it to a greater extent regardless of the party in power, must be shared by the State and industry.
The F.B.I, suggests that industry's contribution should go up by another 25 per cent., that is, to £50 million, but that this figure should be matched by another £50 million from the Government.
This is an example of the sort of partnership that has been visualised. What are the implications of this? Already industry—and the report of the F.B.I. shows it—is giving up some of its autonomy when it is calling on State funds. Earlier, I referred to the work of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which looked into the problem of research and research associations. We received a fund of advice, and this is an example of what can be given to the back-bench Members of Parliament. The directors of a research association, to quote the advice which they give us, would be the first to agree that industry was much more now a community function, and that, conversely, the Government takes on substantial responsibilities for the economic health of the country and the impact on it of research.
One of the most remarkable things is the extent to which in this country we

have co-operative research between competing firms in one industry through our research associations. We take it for granted, but other countries are amazed at the extent to which competing firms will co-operate. But this creates its problems. Some of the progressive firms want to carry out their own research, and do not see why they should pass on the benefits of that research to their competitors.
Many directors of research associations have pointed out to me that one of their functions in running their own association is to go around collecting money to support themselves. On the other hand, it gives them a chance of gaining entry into certain companies where that chance would be lacking, but for that introduction. The fundamental problem which is still with us is whether or not the return from research and work in research associations is likely to be of increasing benefit indefinitely to us in this country.
If industry spends 25 per cent. more, which is the figure the F.B.I. put forward, how should it be spent? Should it be spent by individual companies in their own firms, or should it be spent collectively? One of the difficulties is that far too frequently those carrying out no research in their own companies are able to benefit from research carried out by their competitors.
I accept the figure of an extra £100 million as being a reasonable target which should be aimed for in this country. We have referred to the relative amount of gross national product spent on research. In the United Kingdom this is about 2·7 per cent., in the United States of America slightly higher, 2·8 per cent. We have to ask ourselves whether this money and the manpower involved will be spent effectively.
It is said that in the United States and Russia their understanding of science is greater than in this country. I shall deal with the manpower position shortly. There is no doubt that we are bringing into existence a larger number of scientists as a result of our "production line" in education.
Last year in the debate, I gave some of my impressions of Russia. From what I saw, I was very impressed with the equipment and facilities in Russian teaching establishments as well as their research associations, and, in particular,


I referred to the Institute of Steel. I also gave as my impression that scientists were living to a certain extent in their own ivory tower. One of the problems facing Russia to a greater extent than this country or the United States was to apply the research that they were carrying out in their research establishments to many of their more basic industries.
It is my view—and I put this forward in all humility—that in our debates five years' hence we shall more and more be discussing the application of science in our industries. In considering the work of research associations I am convinced that just as this was the challenge which confronted us a few years ago, it will confront us again to a great extent in the years to come.
I said that I would touch on the manpower problem. There is some disagreement about the observation in the 1961 Report,
That the overall supply and demand for qualified manpower will not be very much out of balance by 1965.
What I feel is that we are still short of engineers and mathematicians. The information coming in, and it has been mentioned this evening, is that not enough people are going into our universities with these qualifications, but bearing in mind that the numbers taking part in the courses of colleges of advanced technology and technical colleges are increasing five or six-fold, I think that it is wrong to impute that nothing is happening.
Another view that I share is that we cannot have too many scientifically trained people in the production lines of our industry—by this I mean not only production, but sales departments. I have had many discussions on the status of the scientists in industry, and it is still felt by some scientists that they are part of the kit of top management. This was the phrase put over to me this weekend. In fact, the President of the Federation of British Industries is stated to have said that 64 out of every 100 top managers in industry at present have no major qualifications. He said this in a speech at Cambridge, about two weeks ago. Oxford and Cambridge produced 7 per cent. of the top board level material, other universities 7 per cent., and 64 per cent. had no particular qualification but experience. But this will inevitably change.
We must ask ourselves: why is this so? Hon. Members opposite will appreciate that one of their aims for industry not so long ago was that men should be able to rise to the top from the shop floor. Now it appears that their aim is to have men in industry with proper qualifications only at the top. I believe that in future more and more managers will have the scientific qualifications we want. Therefore it is desirable and inevitable that we face this fundamental problem of how do we pay our scientific manpower. Do we pay them enough?
In our debate last year I suggested that Russia had got the balance slightly wrong and were not paying enough to the managers in industry in proportion to the payment made to their top scientists. One of our problems is, assuming our managers had the scientific qualifications, how much remuneration should pure scientists in research receive as against scientists taking on managerial posts. I think that that is something to be welcomed and that more and more industry will have the scientific qualifications because of the momentum of our educational programme.
I accept that many of us do not wish to be complacent. To summarise, my view is that science is a means to an end and the means of providing ordinary people with a rising standard of living. Technology is, therefore, perhaps the end-product of much of our scientific endeavour and must be applied in our industries. Therefore, science is not an end in itself. It is only the application of science, not science itself, which will concern us as an industrial society.
I welcome the increasing number of scientists coming out of our educational system. I respect and admire those who decide to stay on in research in our universities, research establishments or research associations. But I would also say that our national problem as the years go by will be to make room for more and more scientists in the production line, and I look forward to the day when every supervisor and foreman will have the qualifications of a top graduate at the university, or the holder of a top diploma from a college of technology.
Therefore, I support the view that we need not be ashamed of the progress and change that we have made in the last five years. I look forward to this pattern continuing.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: We have all listened with interest to the very thoughtful speech that has just been made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn). We would not all agree with his conclusions, which I thought were rather complacent, although not quite so complacent as those contained in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. After the devastating exposure of the situation by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) we got from the Parliamentary Secretary what was no doubt the best defence he could put up, but it was really a very complacent one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said, the hon. Gentleman seemed totally unaware of the ferment in scientific circles about the Governments drifting policy for science as the outside world sees it.
In some respects I have great sympathy for the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know whether he sees his Minister very often. The Minister has been putting on his cloth cap and going to the North-East, and now I suppose he has another hat for Moscow. I only hope that on this occasion the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to convey to his noble Friend some of the feelings of acute disquiet which have been evinced from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in this debate.
The hon. Member referred to the speech that he made on this subject last year. The fact we have had only one debate a year is, in its way, the best evidence of how the Government treat science, and what they feel about it. We can spend any amount of time in debating other subjects, but it has now been left to the Opposition for three years running to provide even this meagre opportunity of one day. I am glad that it has been taken, but I am sure that historians will think we had a strange sense of values when they record these times.
The country, the House and the Government must be prepared to improve the status and importance of scientists. So far we have failed to do this. The Government must take much of the responsibility in this matter, because it is their obligation to give a lead. That lead has been singularly lacking. We have had the occasionally splenetic speeches in

another place from the Minister for Science when criticisms have been made about him, or else his silly joke that he can take his Department about with him in a taxi cab. That is no way to treat an activity upon which determines so much of the standard of living of our people now and of our economic and technical future. I hope that from this debate onwards hon. Members on both sides will resolve that science must occupy a place much nearer the centre in our deliberations.
I want to start the main part of my speech by saying something about the Civil Service and the need for change. I do not want to make a general charge against it. It is sometimes said that a nation gets the Civil Service that it deserves, and I think that, on the whole, we have a very good one. But many scientists feel that they are being treated as second-class citizens in it, and that the old classical maxim that if a person has a broad general education he can administer everything has certain limitations. The obvious conclusion may be that the less one knows about a subject the more objective one's decision may be—but, of course, it may also be much more irrelevant. There are some Departments which cannot be run upon this old-fashioned concept.
Because I think that it puts the situation in a nutshell I want to quote something that Dr. Bowden said in the remarkable television performance on 30th May, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East referred earlier. Dr. Bowden is the Principal of the College of Science and Technology at Manchester University, and he said:
I think that the whole of the Establishment—the Civil Service in particular—need a fairly radical reform, and the introduction into them of more people who have been educated in engineering and science, as distinct from the Humanities which dominate the Civil Service at the moment. I sometimes think in fact that our Civil Servants are rather like Chinese mandarins—men of very great culture, charming personality—with an extreme ability to maintain the system unchanged from year to year. We need people who can innovate and can understand the changes which modern society is passing through; and unless and until we get such people in positions of authority and power, this country will never be able to move forward with Europe and with the rest of the world to take its proper place in this, the second half of the twentieth century.
That is right. My suggestion is that where certain scientific decisions have to


be made they should be made the direct responsibility of a scientific adviser and not an administrator. Many scientists feel that they are not properly consulted. Their views are given at second-hand. There are many spheres in which scientists must be given the status and position which their important work justifies.
I also want to make a brief reference to the position of those who work in laboratories, because the question of recruitment to some extent hinges upon conditions there. No Government Department today is responsible for looking after health, safety and welfare conditions in laboratories. For nearly a century we have had the Factories Acts. Now, after ten years—almost the entire life of this Government—during which we have been agitating about safety conditions and welfare in shops and offices we have legislation for them, too, but the position is still that unless a laboratory happens to be in a factory there is no Government responsibility for conditions.
I have taken this question up with the Minister for Science and also the Minister of Labour. It is admitted that there is no authority at present. The Minister of Labour has said that next time the Government are revising factory legislation they will think about this. That is profoundly unsatisfactory for the many thousands who now work in laboratories. I dare not think about what would happen if fires were to break out in some of our university laboratories and others, and how people would be able to get out of the building, quite apart from questions of health and comfort which ought to be improved and supervised.
When I was trying to obtain an amendment to the Dock Regulations the Secretary for Technical Co-operation—then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour—said that the Government were getting a move on, and that this reform would happen shortly. That was in 1955, but these Regulations have still not been amended. I am not happy about this. The lives, health and happiness of many people who are working in laboratories are of great importance; they feel that they are completely ignored. They have made representations through their professional organisations, and I hope that something will be done to give them the ordinary, decent and

safe conditions which every worker is entitled to expect.
Turning to the major themes of the debate, we have all been greatly interested in the rather radical policies of the F.B.I. in their document Civil Research Policy. In a way this is a commentary upon the lack of effective science policy which the Government have been following, and the sort of drift that has taken place over the last few years. The report admits that some progress has been made, but on the first page it says that there has been not nearly enough, and on page 9 it envisages the expenditure of £100 million as corresponding with the employment of another 12,000 qualified men working on research in industry.
It goes on to refer to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, that the Government will often have to decide which firm is the most suitable for the help which the Government can give and then, on page 10, it says:
We conceive that the Minister for Science must bear responsibility for determining the allocation of State support as between all these claimants and for the scientific strategy on which it should be based.
This is a remarkable doctrine, coming from the F.B.I, and one that I very much welcome. Indeed, it is just what the Opposition have said for the last three or four debates.
The Report says that it is impossible for the National Research Development Corporation to do its job if it has always "to make ends meet". This is a forward-looking document, and the fact that the F.B.I. has produced it is an adequate commentary on the inadequacy of Government policy and lack of co-ordination and the failure of the Government to devote a sufficient amount of the nation's resources both in cash and building for essential research of all kinds.
I want to give one or two examples of that failure because they seem to me to bring home in a practical way just how many opportunities the Government have missed. I want to refer again to that television broadcast of 30th May. Let me say first of all that nobody on these benches suggests that we in our universities and training establishments are not capable of producing the very best of scientists and technologists. What breaks our heart is that they have to go


elsewhere because they cannot get opportunities for research or permanence of employment here. There are all kinds of projects, a whole series of things, as that television broadcast showed, which are not being proceeded with for lack of facilities.
There was the remarkable 3 D microscope which has been invented at Cambridge. In this one can see objects in three dimensions at very high magnification. It arose out of experiments in another field. It was taken to the National Research Development Corporation which admitted that the idea would work but said it could not afford to help, no doubt, largely because it had as many other commitments as its finances would allow. The scientists hawked the project round to ten firms who admitted it was a practical idea, but no one has taken it up. These scientists know that if they offered this invention to French or German firms it would be put into operation very quickly indeed. So they have spent five years working on it themselves. I am glad, but this is surely a field where the Government could have and should have given help.
There is the question of the new material which has been discovered at Newcastle. It is possible for the material to change its electrical resistance by something like 10,000 times over a range of temperatures between 20 degrees and 30 degrees. This would have the utmost value to television and electronics and so on, but no one has been found willing to back this project, and it is still hanging fire.
There were other examples of this kind quoted in that television broadcast, and one would like to know why the Government have not helped. Is it because of lack of organisation? Is it because of lack of knowledge? What is the obstacle which prevents national resources from being devoted to these kinds of development?
One has heard so often—and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East referred to them again this afternoon—of the lack of buildings and accommodation for scientists and research, and examples of this were given in that television broadcast. For instance, there was the Birmingham Medical School which was built before the war with accommodation for

90 students; it has now 150 and cannot take any more because there is simply not room for them. It has not adequate laboratory facilities, and so its work is severely restricted because of lack of space. There is the Pharmacology School at Edinburgh, which has turned down 16 post-graduate students because it has no room for them. So one can go through university after university giving examples of the lack of buildings.
That television broadcast showed the other side of the coin, too. Professor Nixon of University College Hospital actually showed his empty laboratory where there are the organs of 5,000 babies who died in 1958—still unexamined. It is empty because there was not money to pay the workers' salaries. He pointed out that one in a thousand babies are born deaf and that every eight hours a spastic child is born. Research into all this is needed immediately, and yet there is no technician available in 1963 to examine the organs of babies who died in 1958. That is the other side of the picture. What a picture!
Then there is mental health which we talk about a good deal in this Chamber and on which we are spending more money, and we are encouraging local authorities to spend more money on it. Professor Daniel, who has made a great contribution in this field, said that he had to spend one quarter of his time trying to get money which was a waste of his time, and, of course, it was a waste of his energy.
These seem to me to be practical examples of the way in which science is hampered at the present time and of the failure of the Government to help research where they could have helped. It is a condemnation of their general attitude and policy.
I want to close by referring specifically to two other examples. I have often heard the Parliamentary Secretary, in answer to Questions in the House on specific subjects—cancer, for example—say that it is not true to say that cancer research cannot be carried on for lack of money: there may be other reasons why it cannot be developed. Dr. Bonham, of University College Hospital Obstetric Research Unit, who has been doing work of this character, said:
I have been working in this department for four years, doing clinical work, teaching


and research. During the last year we have been lucky enough to develop a new technique for the diagnosis of early cancer. This is a major breakthrough, we feel, and unfortunately we now know that it may be necessary to stop most of this work as my salary is about to dry up. Despite strenuous efforts by my predecessor to obtain funds to keep the salary going we have not yet been able to register any success, and I am having to think about my future most seriously. I think the work is so important that it may be necessary for me to go elsewhere, and I am therefore thinking of emigrating to some country where facilities and salary are more readily available.
This is from somebody actually engaged in research which has achieved a break through and it shows that the argument that money does not inhibit research is not true, although it is used in answer to Questions put in the House from time to time.
Then there was Dr. Bunton, of London University, a lecturer in chemistry, who gave reasons for going away:
One reason is the lack of space here. We are not exactly living in cupboards, but we are very restricted for accommodation. This building is about sixty years old, and we are still waiting for a new one. Here, my office is carved out of a lavatory, with a partition across there, and every now and again one can hear chains rattling. This is not very important in itself, but it is symptomatic of the whole system under which we work.
Is it difficult for anyone to imagine why these people want to go to work somewhere else? I think that that television broadcast was most revealing of the things which are happening in many universities and hospitals, and showed the failure of the Government to harness the minds of these men and to help them. They do not know from one year to another whether they will be employed and it is impossible for them to get the best results in these conditions.
We must have a change in the attitude, not only changes of the sort I have mentioned, such as a change in the Government's organisational structure, or in the structure of the Civil Service, or having but one Minister to concentrate on these things and not to be spending his time on half a dozen different jobs at the same time. We need a Government change, we shall not get the change until we get a change of Government.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: From what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) said one would get the

impression that absolutely nothing was being done at all, but I think it is true to point out that in the broadcast to which he made allusion the spirit of the criticisms was not so much that things were all that bad, but rather the anxiety to illustrate points where things were not well.
Having said that, I agree with him that many firms are extremely reluctant to engage in modern technology or to take opportunities for something new. I suggest that that comes partly from our national character, but also partly as a result of experience. We have not suffered having our factories destroyed in the war, and have continued with our old factories and old methods, selling products it the old way to our old customers. We did not have the mental shake-up caused by the physical destruction which occurred in other countries on the Continent.
I am not a technician myself but I have been told that in the steel industry not only in this country, but also in the United States of America, which also, like ourselves, did not have the experience of destruction, there has been hardly a single new idea which has not been imported since the war from France, Germany or Japan. While I know that plant has been modernised, I believe that the inspiration and movement of invention in the steel industry in this country, while it is getting a welcome move-on at the moment, has, in the past, been seriously at fault.
I feel that the figures which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave show that a remarkable change is taking place; the doubling and trebling in various spheres, and even bigger increases in some, over the past five years in the expenditure which we have achieved has been a considerable contribution. We now have 2·7 per cent. of our gross national product devoted to research. If that is combined with the amount devoted to education, which is more than 4 per cent., we have a rather large figure which is worthy of what the country can do. To speak of this situation as being one of stagnation is to be not quite fair.
In terms of percentages, we approximate to the United States, although it is so much wealthier than we are that in absolute terms we spend much less


than is spent there. If we are to make important increases in our expenditure on scientific research we must first bend our energies to increasing the gross national product. If we have more resources available we shall find it easier to have the huge expenditure which we should like to undertake.
If we are to increase the gross national product fairly quickly, it follows that we must direct our scientific research efforts towards projects which show some hope of an economic return within the fairly near future. This is what industry largely does, but I think that the Government ought to do a little more than they have done in the past. There will not be a substantial increase without Government incentive.
While I admire very much the work which the Lord President has done in this respect, I have, nevertheless, found some difficulty in measuring its scope, because there are so many different organisations—D.S.I.R. and all the others which I could list and which have been mentioned this afternoon. It may be that this is the best way of organising to give scientific freedom, but I should need convincing on this point, and I cannot help feeling that the Government need to bring things more into focus so that in our debates we can understand a little more precisely what is the Government's object rather than having to discuss various organisations, knowing the object of those organisations.
If we do this, and if the Government extend their operations in that kind of research, we run a formidable risk of losing a lot of money. My hon. Friend called attention to that this afternoon. I suppose that at the moment applied research goes into projects which we consider have some economic future, and if we are to be bolder it means that we shall take greater risks and shall lose money sometimes when things go wrong. I hope that if that happens hon. Members on both sides will restrain themselves in their criticisms.
We on this side have had our fun in talking about Princess flying boats and Britannias which did not go very well, and hon. Members opposite have had a lot of amusement from our changes in defence policy as technology moves on. We must realise that if we are to be

bolder in this respect we shall make some wrong decisions, and make decisions before all the facts are assembled for us to be sure that we are right, and, therefore, we shall lose some money.
May I refer to the various international organisations which are devoted to scientific research? Without arguing the point at length, I believe that these organisations can be extremely expensive for us. I have in mind E.S.R.A., E.L.D.O. and Euratom. There is a certain amount of political fall-out from being a member of this organisation, but I think that it is an expensive way of producing political advantage. For instance, I suppose there is little question of our joining Euratom while the negotiations about our joining Europe are held up, but this is an illustration of the fact that we shall join Euratom not for scientific, but for political reasons.
The political reasons are good, and I support them, but we must have some regard to the scientific disadvantages which we suffer. In Euratom we shall be contributing our knowledge and benefiting other people if they wish to take advantage of it. No doubt in other cases we shall be the greater beneficiaries, but in the absence of an agreed rôle for some of these organisations, and bearing in mind the fact that, because one must co-operate with member-nations who have slightly different ideas, there is an inability to agree on the final shape of the programme, all of these organisations are bound to waste a certain amount of money.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does this mean that the hon. Member is in favour of decreasing the British contribution to CERN, Geneva?

Mr. Kershaw: I believe that we should increase our contributions, and I can see that there is some value in these organisations, but from the purely scientific point of view we should be careful and make certain that we are getting value for money. We must not think that because they are international they are necessarily better than what we, or any other country, can do on our own. They are no substitute for excellence in our own science.
I want to refer to the cross-fertilisation of experience between the scientific and administrative Civil Service and industry


and academic life. This is a great problem in our research establishments. How are those who run them or administer them to have the opportunity to go to industry for a time and then return to their posts? How is the industrialist to be enabled to going to research and then to return to industry? This also applies to the universities.
All concerned are anxious to do this, because of the obvious advantages which it gives, but in the career structure of the Civil Service it is not easy to arrange for a man to be away from his post for a time, and the career structure of industry does not easily allow an industrialist to go for some time to a research establishment. These people might not necessarily be good at the opposite job.
If we are to make sure that the civil servant understands what the scientist is talking about and that the scientist does not say that a civil servant was a good scientist in his day but that that was twenty years ago and he is now only an administrator—one does come across the cases in which the scientist has a slight contempt for the administrator—then we must make sure that there is this cross-fertilisation and interchange, such as we have seen to a greater extent in the United States than here. This will have to be a conscious task of our policy.
Lastly, I want to refer to one aspect of the way in which the Government have at their disposal scientific and academic opinion. I am not referring to the technical side, such as in the Ministry of Aviation, but to the academic and scientific approach to Government problems. An example is in the problems in defence—not necessarily on the technical side of the weapons but on how defence should be organised and which political policies are reasonable and sensible in the technological circumstances which now obtain and which will obtain increasingly in some years time. I am sure that we have nothing like enough of this business. The United States does a great deal of it and while it may be thought that sometimes it does a little too much of this academic thinking or academic advising of the Government of the United States, I am certain that here we do much too little.
I have in mind institutions such as the Rand Corporation, which is run by the

American Air Force and has contributed very important thought to the defence concepts of the Western world. Then there are it nerant professors who set up institutes financed by the generosity of the foundations which exist in America in such large numbers. They are almost to be compared with the wandering philosophers of the Middle Ages. They go round setting up these institutes and offering free advice to anybody who cares to listen. It is very good advice. At any rate, it is amusing and interesting advice. Nothing like it exists here. People cannot set up an institute when there is nobody to give them the money to do it. Very important contributions to research, defence research in particular, have been made by such people.
I understand that tomorrow we are to have a White Paper on the reorganisation of our Service Ministries. There has been some sort of public debate about this, but not in the House of Commons. We hardly had an opportunity to refer to it, except in passing, in the Defence debate. Although the Minister has doubtless been only too willing to receive suggestions from any quarter from which they may come, we have not had an academic or intellectual debate about how the defence Ministries should be organised. I do not say this in any critical way, but the staff of all our Ministries, especially of the Service Ministries, are not in their posts very long. They have experience of three or four years, and then they have to pass on in the course of their career to do something else. There is a slight feeling of hit or miss. I hope the solution when it comes tomorrow will be a good one. I do not know what it will be. We have not had a proper debate about it. This is an instance of how the academic side of life can be to some extent neglected by the Government.
If it is decided that this is an idea which ought to be pursued, it is clear that the money for it will have to come from the Government. I hope that it will be possible, therefore, to establish a closer connection, not only with science, but also with academic life, so that the Government of the country will benefit from their thoughts.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Parliamentary Secretary for Science had


a clash with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) on the question of molecular biology. It is true that in 1959 Britain was leading the whole field in molecular biology, but, Dr. King, you will remember that when you and I were guests of Dr. Max Perutz in Cambridge he said that now in early 1963—

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): The hon. Gentleman must not bring the Chair into the debate.

Mr. Dalyell: I withdraw that. When a party of us went to Cambridge, it was then pointed out—this was in March 1963—that nine-tenths of molecular biology work was now going on in the United States. This serves to underline the theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Grossman), that this country seems to be unable to reinforce such scientific successes as it has.
I wish to focus on a single topic, namely, the teaching of science graduates in institutions outside the orbit of a university.
My general proposal is that after they have completed their first degree, lasting for three or four years, graduates should have the opportunity of continuing formal study at industrial research establishments, either for a Ph.D. or to do a formal second degree course.
In the interests of coherence, I am naming a cross-section of ten places which I have visited recently, either privately or with the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, and where I have discussed this proposition in depth.
One was the Beecham's Research Laboratories at Dorking. Another was the B.P. Research Laboratory at Sunbury-on-Thames. The third was the Mechanical Engineering Research Laboratory at East Kilbride. Incidentally, I was pleased to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary for Science that there are now five professors at the Royal College of Science and Technology in Glasgow from East Kilbride. The fourth was the East Malling Fruit Research Station. The fifth was the Gas Council Research Laboratories at Solihull. The sixth was Harwell. The seventh was the M.R.C. at Mill Hill. The eighth was the Royal Institution,

Albemarle Street. The ninth was the Smith, Kline, French Laboratory at Welwyn Garden City. The last was the Vickers Research Establishment at Sunninghill.
In most academic circles it is strenuously contended that in universities research and teaching must go side by side. Who, in fact, has argued this most eloquently of all? None other than the Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. and noble Friend in his book, Science and Politics. Yet if art is true that research and teaching are both essential ingredients of scientific health in universities, may it not also be true that research establishments, which do little, if any, teaching, are the poorer for it?
This seemingly theoretical point is supported by my actual personal inquiries at the ten establishments I have listed. I must have asked at least one hundred different scientists of standing in their own special field, "Could you usefully supervise the studies of one or two graduates if they were attached to you for two or three years?" and only on four occasions did I get the answer, "Not really".
To the second question, "Would it give you pleasure to devote some portion of your time to looking after a young graduate?", only one scientist said "Frankly, no".
It is rather an important point that these are the kind of men and women to whom their work matters for its own sake and who would positively enjoy taking trouble over training one or two graduates for whom they were to be personally responsible.
I am aware that it may seem that I am suggesting some sort of ne'er day medieval craft apprenticeship for twentieth century science graduates. Certainly it would be open to abuse. Those of us who move in scientific circles are also aware that on many occasions virulently acid remarks are made about existing professors at universities who, either because they have not the time or because they have not the inclination, seem to neglect those who are, at any rate nominally, in their post-graduate care. The fact is that post-graduate facilities in our universities are far from perfect.
Scientists at research stations are surely men of conscience, neither more nor less


than scientists at universities. Most would not accept a graduate in care if they thought they would waste his time. Yet, with the best will in the world, are research institution scientists of the right calibre for the task I have in mind, because, if not, the whole pattern I am trying to build up falls? The ability of the brilliant teams that work with Dr. Vick at Harwell or alongside Professor Medowar at Mill Hill are world famous. About them there can be no question.
What is not generally realised is the amount of ability which is locked up in less famous and less venerable establishments.
Hon. Members who have been there will know that at the Smith, Kline and French Research Laboratory at Welwyn Garden City among the formidable academic staff are three ex-heads of university departments. It is also instructive that one of them, Dr. Bain, ex-Professor of Pharmacology at Leeds, left, not for financial reasons, but because he was frankly cheesed off with administration and committee duties and wanted to do research and teaching. The firm has given him excellent research facilities, but he has very little—in fact no—teaching to do.
At Sunbury, B. P.'s E. S. Sellers, late-Professor at the University of Swansea, is heading a departmental team pioneering the micro-biology of straight-chain hydro-carbon and turning it into protein. Next door, in wonderfully idyllic surrounding at Sunninghill, Vickers' research team is doing the most exciting and fascinating work on high pressure oxygen therapy, combining the talents of doctors of medicine, biochemists and mechanical engineers, with production know-how.
It is also a consideration that the research establishments tend to be far ahead of the universities in the new borderline subjects. This is, after all, easily explained. University departments get finance usually on the basis of a per head grant for undergraduates. It is a sort of pro rata system. However, many of the new subjects—I think of the science of allergy and immunology—do not lend themselves to first degree undergraduate teaching. Therefore, they tend not to blossom in existing universities. This seems to me to constitute an argument for making possible a

second degree formal course at establishments out with universities.
It is apposite to add that when my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) and Dorset, South (Mr. Barnett) and I were the guests of Drs. Perutz, Sanger, Klug, Crick and Brenner at the Molecular Biology Unit at Cambridge, it was the almost unanimous opinion that their work, combining physics, chemistry and medicine, might not have been possible within the framework of an existing university department.
If the Government were prepared to build hostels for graduates in the grounds of such establishments as Sunninghill, Sunbury and others, where a mass of highly expensive and sophisticated equipment is already concentrated, life for the post-graduate could be just as exciting—and cross-fertilisation equally as potent—as in a university.
Business minds on the benches opposite might be bringing their critical faculties into play, and for reasons at which I do not sneer—those of confidentiality.
One head, though only one, of a laboratory—Beecham's, Dorking—did raise precisely this point. He said, "We're here to help keep our firm prosperous and not for educational reasons." There are other opinions. For instance, I asked Lord Fleck a few very direct questions. "You can quote me", he said, "that in my opinion confidentiality of work constitutes little reason why I.C.I. should not do graduate educational training at its establishments, if it is considered desirable on other grounds". And that is an opinion after six decades in the chemical industry.
Most of these problems can be taken care of by the laws of patent. But supposing a significant number of graduates did study at research establishments. What would be the end product?
Before answering this 64 dollar question I should point out that the traditional British system of Ph.D.s must be scrutinised and certain questions asked.
First, in how many scientific disciplines, in the 1960s, is a graduate any more than half trained after three years?
Secondly, is it not significant that the technical course at, say, Aachen and Delft, where they work students fairly hard, are five or sometimes seven years?
Thirdly, is there not a rather crucial distinction to be drawn between the need for a British Ph.D. involving original research and a thorough training second degree course during the age range 21 to 24? In this connection, I quote Professor Alec Haddow—and many others have ventilated this theme:
Ph.D. training is a graining in research, and recognised as such by the universities and D.S.I.R. Ph.D. does not usually cannalise a man's brain into the teaching of Advanced Technology. Ph.D.s in general are no better qualified than they were before they started their doctorate to do teaching at advanced colleges of technology, and my institute"—
that is, the Chester Beatty Research Institute for Cancer
and I am aware of an obligation to do more about formal 2nd degree teaching.
Quite a number of examiners are worried about the "monumental irrelevance" of a proportion of the Ph.D. subject-matter. Professor Ronald King of the Royal Institute, Albemarle Street, who has considerable experience as an external examiner in Physics, feels that many of his examinees would have used their time far better if, instead of a lonesome Ph.D., they had spent their time doing a formal course of work in a research atmosphere.
I am now in a position to answer the question about end products from education at research establishments between the ages of 21 and 25. First, for a few, I want facilities to do a traditional Ph.D. linked with a parent university—perhaps preferably one of the new universities at York, Warwick, Colchester, Lancaster or Sussex.
Secondly, for many more—destined perhaps to become teachers in colleges of advanced technology and sixth form teachers—I want arrangements made for a highly personal but properly organised course of instruction, paid for by the State, which would have the incidental effect of releasing the energies of many scientists who work at such establishments.
Sir Henry Jones, Chairman of the Gas Council, is basically sympathetic to this kind of argument. He raises minor

problems about continuity of work, and so on, but these are not insurmountable. It is pointed out that the Gas Council and its establishments are faced with changing problems. They are researching into one aspect on one occasion and into another on another date. I appreciate that these difficulties exist but they are by no means unanswerable.
I have made a number of highly tendentious statements and have asked a number of loaded questions. There is no quick or slick answer to these and I appreciate that conditions vary from place to place.
On one point, however, I beg hon. Members not to be deceived by the old argument, usually produced by top people in top places, that study should be carried on only in the confines of the university or C.A.T. if academic merit is to be recognised. This is possibly true for the age group 18 to 21 or 22,but I beg hon. Members to beware of those who extend this line of thought to the age group 21 or 22 to 25.
Questioned why the universities will not farm out their graduates to establishments with far better facilities and more space for research than their own, I have heard people use the word "snooty" not once or twice but on at least twenty separate occasions. I suppose that all of us like to do our little bit of empire building on the quiet and, understandably, departments want to build up their reputations.
However, we must be clear that plans for the educational use of expertise and equipment concentrated in the 40 or so institutions of the type I have described do not stand or fall by reasons of prestige for individuals.
What I demand is that the educational deployment of scientific manpower out-with the universities should be judged on its own merits.
At stake is not just how we produce enough industrial scientists, deeply educated lecturers at colleges of advanced technology and technical colleges, and an overflow of deeply trained men and women to carry out worthwhile teaching of high age groups in our schools. Involved in these problems is the future of Britain.

8.7 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I am sure that most hon. Members


agreed with much of what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) had to say, particularly in the closing passages of his speech. Before continuing, I apologise for having had to leave the Chamber soon after listening to the two opening speeches and for returning only three quarters of an hour ago. My absence was unavoidable.
Today's debate is somewhat waiting for the Trend Committee's Report. We are attempting to discuss—and the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) made a robust entry into the arena—this matter comprehensively, but it is a pity that we have not had the Report before us. It is also a pity that the Advisory Committee on Scientific Policy cannot get its report out earlier each year, because we are rather limited when debating scientific matters. It would help if that Committee's report was available, because it will contain more up-to-date information than the last one to which we can refer, for that covers the year 1961–62.
The question of science and the Government, in which the hon. Member for Coventry, East is so interested, was referred to in the eighth Fawley Foundation Lecture under the heading "Science and Government". It is interesting to note that it included the following:
In the Government it is important not so much that there should be a Science Minister as that all Ministries should learn to regard the application of science, each in its own particular sphere, as one of its main responsibilities. Education, Power, Transport, the Post Offices, the Defence Ministries, Housing, Agriculture—all such Departments must have scientific staff of some kind as part of their organisation if they are to function at full effectiveness.
I do not think that anyone in this Committee would disagree with that observation, even though it was made by my noble Friend the Minister for Science. We are all beginning to be more and more aware that we simply must try to regear the Government machine, which is one of the things on which the Trend Committee will advise.
I thought that the hon. Member for Coventry, East was a little less than gracious, although he did refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Aid, about the report of a committee—of which he was chairman and of which I had the great privilege to be

a member—published at the end of last year. We vent into this matter for about two-and-a-half years, and I find great similarity between what is in the report from the F.B.I.—with which the hon. Member made much play—and what we recommended. And if it really be true, as the hon. Member said, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) wrote the F.B.I, report, perhaps that is not surprising as he, too, was a member of our committee. There is some similarity between the two documents, though we, perhaps, made some rather more positive suggestions about the Government machine than did the F.B.I. report.
One particular aspect on which I should like to touch is the seconding of scientists into Government and of civil servants info industry. The hon. Member for West Lothian referred particulary to the whole question of the relationship between industry and the universities, and I would agree entirely with what he said. I am certain that we must get a much closer link between universities and the industries in their neighbourhood, but I am also certain that we must get the Government machine far more closely allied to what is going on in industry, and in research and development.
I have no doubt at all that, sooner or later, we must make up our minds on what is the best way to do this. Are they to be the people who are actually practising scientists, technologists or technicians in industry, whom we are to have seconded, or are we to have them doing part-time work in each in turn each week? There is a very strong argument against seconding them for too long.
One can get out of date in any technical subject, as I know from my own experience many years ago in wireless, when I got to the Class B rectification of a five-valve receiver and then gave it up. Two months later I was out of date. One then has to do a great deal of back reading to get up to date. If we are to bring scientists into Government, we must make sure that they do not get out of date.
This matter was referred to by the Zuckerman Committee in paragraph 310 of its Report, on the Management and


Control of Research and Development, which states:
What we would hope to see is a much greater overlap between the Scientific and the Administrative (and indeed the Executive) Class of the Civil Service than now exists. We look forward to the day when men who began in the Scientific Civil Service will become Permanent Secretaries, and when others who started in the Administrative Class will occupy some of the senior posts in research organisations. We believe that there are jobs at present held by members of the Administrative Class which could be done as well by scientists, and vice versa—there are some that could, perhaps, be done better. There should be much greater flexibility in deciding who is the best man to do a job regardless of his origins and classification.
In our Report Science in Industry, published at the turn of the year, we emphasised that we simply must inject into every Government Department a better understanding of the scientific vernacular. I would almost agree with what the hon. Member for Coventry, East said about the snobbishness against science. In the old school of thought there is all too often an attitude of looking down the nose at scientists and technicians. That is absolutely tragic. We shall not get ahead as fast as we should if that is to be the attitude. Lord Fleck made a wonderful speech on the subject to the British Society for the Advancement of Knowledge.
Unless in the board room, and running through management, we have a better understanding, an awareness, and a desire to want to know more about how science works and what the problems of the scientists and technicians are, we shall not win the battle we must win to survive in this highly competitive world. I hope that out of the Trend Committee there will come some really sound recommendations on this subject.
I thought that one passage in the civil research policy paper by the F.B.I. was very significant. It is in page 6. I will not read it, but it refers to the excellent relationship between the Royal Aircraft Establishment, at Farnborough, and the industries connected with it. There must be a lesson for someone to learn there. Why is that not the case with every research establishment that has connected industries? We all know that the Royal Aircraft Establishment is doing splendid work, and probably could not survive as effectively as it now can were it not for

those industries. If we could get that sort of spirit running through all the other establishments, what rapid improvements we might be able to make.
There is something in what was said in that excellent monthly, R. &amp; D., in an article in February, 1963, which called for a Copernican change. It was taking up what had been said by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Science on the B.B.C. My noble Friend said that
The rate of impact is controlled by biological factors. The country … is, broadly speaking, ruled by people between40 and 60, and the people between 40 and 60 were not trained under the new educational revolution; they were trained under the old régime, like me, and you won't get a Copernican change … until the products of the 'fifties and 'sixties in the educational field really get in charge.
It may be that we shall not get the further development of this at once, but we can put the accelerator down a little towards getting this Copernican change. We must have a Minister in a position to be able to drive his Cabinet colleagues—and his colleagues outside the Cabinet—to see that their Departments are put in right order for this—

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucester shire, West) rose—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to interrupt me. I understand that the first of the winding-up speeches is due to start at twenty-eight minutes past eight. I would, therefore, be grateful if he would allow me to continue.
What are the fields in which we have to concentrate most? Stuck away in the last Report from the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy—part of a report from the committee that was presided over by Sir Howard Florey to the ad hoc biological research committee of the Royal Society—is the rather startling statement:
… the two major scientific problems with which mankind is faced—the control of human fertility and the provision (including storage without wastage) of an adequate supply of human foodstuffs—are both biological problems which call for intense research effort over a very wide field. A second type of reason is that there are very many fields of biology which seem to be nearing the point where they might have practical applications.
This paper points out that it is not numbers of men, not the number of people actually at work, that is necessarily the big point. What is important


is the proportion of those on actual research compared with the total numbers of graduates.
It is problems like these that we have to see get the right priority, and I do not think that they ever will get the right priority unless the people at the Treasury are much better informed on these matters than they are today. I do not think that we shall get it right until the Departments concerned have the right people in them, and it is encouraging to know that those who have studied the work of research councils have gone out of their way to pour praise on the Medical Research Council. Here, there is perhaps more hope of our being able to grapple with these problems than there is with a lot of the others, which have a lot of leeway to make up.
Although the Parliamentary Secretary gave us some fine figures today, and I congratulate him on them, we simply must not give the impression that we are becoming complacent about this. I would say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, who is to reply to the debate, that in this scientific field we have a new dynamic for helping the Commonwealth. We can help the Commonwealth to jump some of the mistakes which we have made and to go a little further and apply some of the modern technology which we are perhaps in a better position to provide than anyone else.
I know that many people go to America and do not come back, but I would deplore making our scientific manpower insular. We want as much interchange as possible, but before we encourage people to go to America we should help them to go to the Commonwealth countries. There is much of which the Government can be proud, but I believe that we must put, the accelerator down now in getting the Trend report. We have had to wait too long for it already. I hope also that when we have that report it will not be made an excuse by Lord Robbins to delay his report on education. We must get university education right and the colleges of advanced technology right. We must make sure that we realise and that the country realises that we are in a hurry. We have some ground to catch up and time is short.

8.22 p.m.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) for his great courtesy in allowing me to join in the closing stage of the debate.
I should like to return to the theme which ran through the earlier speeches. I found the Parliamentary Secretary's speech rather like that of the then Mr. Baldwin who, in the depths of the depression in the 1930s, announced in this place that the export of broccoli from Cornwall had been doubled.
The theme is the philosophy of the Minister for Science. This has come under the sharpest attack and has been shown on both sides of the Committee today to be most inadequate. The Lord President of the Council has been responsible for civil science since 1957. He rightly takes comfort from the fact that expenditure on research has grown. This is an achievement, but why, with this picture, is the world of science today absolutely seething with discontent? There can be no doubt at all that it is.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely said that perhaps the C.P.C. pamphlet and not the F.B.I. report initiated this discussion, but the discontent with the whole outlook and philosophy of the Minister for Science is still there. The N.E.D.C. Report insists that a sector by sector survey of research in the whole of industry is necessary if we are to identify the growing points of research in future. This has been something which everybody expected from the Minister for Science after the last election, and we have not had it. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) said that we had wasted time. Indeed, we have gone backwards in the last three years. It is more difficult now to recover the case for a strong Minister for Science.
Is this due to personal failure on the part of the Minister? I do not think so. There is a fundamental misconception in the philosophy of science which the Minister represents and in which he has been sustained by the Government. The noble Lord says many true and wise things in his book, but we are left with the impression which is described by Dr. Toulmin, in his textbook on The


Philosophy of Science, which has been university reading by students for the past ten years but not, apparently, by the noble Lord.
Dr. Toulmin says, of the philosophy of science:
Notice first the topics one finds discussed in books of logic. Induction, Causality, whether the results of the sciences are true or only highly probable, the Uniformity of Nature …
and adds:
But to anyone with practical experience of the physical sciences there is a curious air of unreality about the results. Lucid, erudite, and carefully argued they may be; yet somehow they seem to miss the mark. It is not the things that are said are untrue or fallacious, but rather that they are irrelevant: the questions which are so impeccably discussed have no bearing on physics.
This is also the impression from reading the noble Lord's book.
In a key sentence in that book the noble Lords says:
It is not the amateurish quality of rulers which raises the real problems in the relationship of science and government; it is the nature of science itself; contrasted with the inherent character of the aims, and limitations, of government action. For science is primarily about truth, and therefore ought to be intrinsically disinterested, whereas Government is among other things about power, and is therefore inevitably motivated by the desire of it.
This is an unreal, indeed a deceptive, juxtaposition. We are not saying that science is not about truth any more than the noble Lord is saying that truth has no place in Government. We are saying that in the stage which science has reached today it is a fundamental element in the power structure of the State and must be seen as such.
It is not that the Minister minimises the sheer weight of science in affairs today; it is that he keeps it in the anterooms of power, under the pretence of preserving some sort of purity and integrity in science itself. This is not the spirit of science today. Some say that the noble Lord does this subconsciously to preserve the power of the Establishment. I do not think that this is so. It may be the motive of some of his colleagues in supporting him in this idea, but I think that his concern is more likely to be to safeguard his own intellectual capital in the philosophy which he was taught thirty years ago.
Truth is, of course, fundamental to science but true statements have varying degrees of significance, and the significance of science today is at every stage linked with the structure of power in the State: the subject of study and research with the selective provision of appointments, equipment and the training of manpower; the field of application of science with the undertaking of expensive and risky development; its final use with the distribution of economic power; and the recruitment of manpower, with the social moves determined largely by the outlook and policy of Government.
The power and structure of science in the coming years will be under great strain. There will be undoubtedly an enormous increase in higher education, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) referred in a remarkable speech. The bias against applied science will have to be fought against in the schools and colleges, in this place and in industry. There will be the growth of research with its immense implications for the pattern of employment, training, and outlook for the future, the material standards of living. And, of course, there are the tremendous imponderables of defence.
It is because of this absolutely indissoluble link today between science and the very centres of power that we have demanded a strong Ministry of Science, and this we shall have in not many months' time.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: It is not because I am a completely unbiased witness between the two sides that I would not quarrel very much with a great deal of what has been said in the debate today. In listening to the speeches, however, one was struck by the remarkable difference in the approach to the problems which now confront us. I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who rightly and naturally claimed that the pamphlet with which he was associated was a forward-looking document, but I could not help feeling that if he or any other "progressive Tory"—and that I am afraid is a contradiction in terms—who has spoken in this debate had been speaking at the Dispatch Box we should have heard the same speech as that made by the Parliamentary Secretary. In saying


that, I am not inciting any more rebellions among the party opposite.
I think every speech on this side of the Committee has been demanding that we should be pushing Britain as rapidly as possible into the middle of a great scientific revolution. That has been the theme. On the other side of the Committee we have had the Parliamentary Secretary for Science making a sort of forward defensive prod—to use a cricketing term—playing right down the line, never putting a foot wrong, and at the end of the day, apparently, not conscious of the great problems which the Government's lack of policy has brought about.
I believe that a Tory Government in Britain, in the midst of what should be a great scientific revolution, is a complete anachronism, with the Conservative approach, the status quo, and all that sort of thing. That is the great problem which Britain faces now. The very condition of success in applying scientific methods to industry is the breaking down of a great deal of a higher education system which is an essential part of Tory society. We heard my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) outline all the stultification which one feels inside the universities—the fact that they believe that a science degree is not to be equated with the classics and the humanities. That is the breath of Toryism in Britain. In addition, they are functioning in the oldest industrialised society in the world. The first Industrial Revolution took place here. Against all the probabilities we emerged as a great industrial nation. When I say "against all the probabilities", I refer to a complete lack of indigenous raw materials. Britain's emergence as the greatest industrial nation is a very great story.
But when we have emerged, in spite of all the odds against us, when we have shown the world the basis of manufacturing industry and so on, we then begin to get a vested interest in retaining the tools which gave us that power. In many of our greatest industries we are suffering from our very success. I could show hon. Members machine tools which are still in British industry and which were there at the beginning of the century. This may seem an awful thing to say, but we are suffering from the very quality of

the machine tools which we then produced. Quantitatively they are outclassed by other types. The fact that they can still produce high-quality goods is one of the reasons why we do not scrap them.
We should get a new conception of how to approach problems of industrial production. One of the reasons why the United States are going ahead so much more rapidly than we are is that they have a policy of producing a machine tool with feeds and speeds so coarse that they will rip the guts out of that machine tool in five years, because they know that they will have a new idea by then. We must get more of that kind of approach to industry before we are enabled to compete with other nations.
It is not only necessary to get a new look at the co-operation between universities and industry, but it is also necessary to have a Government who are not too gentle in insisting upon great changes in industry itself. The attitude of the present Government has for so long been, "These are not our problems; they are the problems of industry." I remember the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) producing his report on apprenticeships. He and I do not agree in the least on this topic. I feel that the Government must take responsibility for apprenticeship, and I do not apologise for introducing this topic in to the debate. We are now moving into a period when the craftsman of tomorrow will have to be a technologist. The Government have moved a little since the time of the Carr Report, but it is nevertheless the case that apprenticeships have fallen by 27 per cent. I know that there were fewer school leavers, but the fact is that in the first five months of this year the figures dropped to 33,650 or 12,500 fewer than in a similar period last year.
If we are to get the kind of approach that I want to see to our industrial problems, the Government will have to take far greater control of industrial matters than they have done so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) used the phrase "the fundamental element in power structure of the State". I think that is what I am saying, only in other words. Unless we have a far more positive approach to industrial problems by the Government, then the scientific structure of this nation will be toiling in the rear.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely said something with which I agree when he spoke of the way in which we could assist the Commonwealth to a very marked degree if we could adapt ourselves to this new scientific revolution. I believe that the coming of this scientific revolution, at the moment when the Colonial era is ending, gives man the greatest single chance he has of survival. Our ability to increase wealth production as against the problems of a world in which two-thirds of humanity lives on starvation lines gives us, perhaps, an opportunity to avoid a third world war and certainly to bring higher living standards to so many people. This kind of thing is what my hon. Friend had in mind when he spoke of the atmosphere in which science can flourish. In other words, we do not want to become a scientific nation merely for the fun of it.
We can play an enormously important rôle—and I am not thinking of weapons and the like—if we speedily adapt ourselves to the new techniques which I have been suggesting. Certainly, Toryism is not the very best of political deals upon which to found such a revolution.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) said that we on this side were keen to demand great increases in the application of science to industry, but he asked whether we were prepared to face the consequences of doing so. He referred to technological employment and the like. It is a very great question which must be posed. Merely to believe, however, that the introduction of science to industry necessarily presupposes massive unemployment is of itself defeatist. I went to the United States two years ago, when there were 6 million unemployed. It was largely technological unemployment. That, however, was because of the lack of anticipation and planning which a stage of this kind requires.
The hon. Member said that we might well be negative once we reached a position of heavy unemployment, and in that event he is probably right. If the introduction of automation and modernisation were seen by the trade unions to lead to unemployment, they would, of course, become defensive. Therefore, we must examine our economic policies.
One thing of which I am certain is that the introduction of a scientific revolution to industry, pushed into a stagnant economy, undoubtedly presupposes unemployment. Therefore, the whole concept which we have had from the Government of an economic policy based on stop-go must be abandoned if we are to make a success of the introduction of science to our industrial processes.
I have mentioned apprentices. The question of skilled trained manpower, or the lack of it, may well be a bottleneck which we have to face if we increase the modernisation of our industries. I belong to the union which organises more apprentices than any other, and I have long believed that the whole silly basis of a time-serving mechanism to produce apprentices is sheer, unmitigated nonsense. I should like to see the training of young people for industry taken completely out of the control of industry and made part of our educational system.
The idea that certain highly-technical trades require five years' apprenticeship and that other trades which are not in the same category in the use of techniques also require five years' apprenticeship and that on the day after completing his five years a man is skilled, no matter which of those trades he is in, is something that we should get rid of at the earliest possible moment. These things are concomitant of what we are now discussing—the need for far more science to be applied to our industrial processes.

Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Member go so far as to suggest that the Government should specify periods of apprenticeship for different crafts?

Mr. Lee: No, I do not think that the Government should do that. Those are decisions in which industry should be in partnership with the Government. There is a great responsibility upon the Government—financially, for example—in the technical training of young people, but I do not wish to cut the industrial people with their "know-how" out of the picture altogether.
The Parliamentary Secretary gave me the impression of saying that our industries as a whole were stepping up their expenditure on research and development. That is not so. One of my hon. Friends informs me that the 1961 census showed that the Churches alone employ


more qualified scientists than the machine tool industry, textile machinery, contractors' plant, mechanical handling equipment, domestic electrical appliances, shipbuilding, motor vehicle manufacture, locomotives, clothing, footwear, bricks, pottery, cement, timber, furniture,, water supply, railways, shipping and the port and motor repairing industry all put together.
From the way that the Parliamentary Secretary said that there had been increased expenditure by private enterprise, I thought he was saying that all the great industries of Britain were going in for research and development in a far greater way than they had done before. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will put that right.
The fact is that in 1959–60, excluding Government support, the aircraft, electronics, electrical and chemical industries accounted for 58 per cent. of our research expenditure. If we include Government support, those four industries accounted for 74 per cent. of the total. Probably it is the unequal development of these things which is causing a great deal of trouble.
If we take the industries on the other side, in the public sector, the lack of policy from the Government in respect of the Atomic Energy Authority, in which some 5,300 scientific workers are employed, is resulting in very deep anxiety. I have Risley in my constituency, and I have coining to me people belonging to some of the finest technical and scientific teams in any industry in Britain, and they are worried sick about their future. What an anomaly this is. At a time when I can read out a list of industries which are completely lacking in scientific personnel, these great teams at Risley and in other parts of the Atomic Energy Authority organisation are worried about their future. I am not saying that we should break up the teams. I do not believe we should. But if there is not now sufficient atomic energy work, why are these people not allowed to work on, for instance, the space research projects? Why are they not seconded, in a far better way than at present, to other industries which badly need the skill and techniques which these men possess?
Expenditure as between Government and private industry has been mentioned

in the debate. Taking expenditure on research and development in the United Kingdom in 1961–62, Government defence spending amounted to £245·7 million, civil spending to £110·1 million and spending by research councils £29·2 million. Total expenditure was: Government £385 million, public corporations £22·7 million, private industry £213 million, other organisations £12 million, and the universities £1·3 million, a grand total of £634 million. That sounds a terrific sum of money, and, indeed it is. But this is at a time when Britain spends £480 million a year on advertising. To put it another way, British industry is now spending more than twice as much on advertising as it spends on research—£480 million against £213 million. Is this a position in which the hon. Gentleman finds a great deal of satisfaction? It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East told us about the way in which so many of our scientists are emigrating. Indeed, the Royal Society's Report is extremely disturbing. The hon. Gentleman tried to offset it in some ways, but the facts are as follows. According to the Report some 12 per cent, of our Ph.D.s are emigrating each year. Taking the ten-year period from May 1952, the annual rate of permanent emigration has been about 140, or 12 per cent. If those going abroad temporarily are included, the annual rate of emigration of recent Ph.D.s to the United States alone is at least 260, or more than 22 per cent. of the total output in the subjects which the Committee investigated. The hon. Gentleman said that this is happening in other countries. It is to some degree. The corresponding figures given by the Committee for all countries were 157, or 13·5 per cent. The annual rate of permanent emigration of university staff is about 60 per annum, which is 1 per cent. of the total staff in the United Kingdom in all the subjects investigated.
The terrifying thing about this is that the numbers have increased by a factor of three over the past ten years. This is a very different story from that told today by the Parliamentary Secretary. I have said that we want to assist the Commonwealth, but the breakdown of the figures shows that 25 of the 60 go to the United States, 25 to the Commonwealth and ten elsewhere.
This is a completely one-way traffic. One could understand the advantages of a cross fertilisation of various industries if there were a two-way traffic. But this is an exodus from Britain from which there is not the slightest return. It is not only a matter of quantity. We learn that we have recently lost a number of outstanding scientists to the United States, including nine Fellows of the Royal Society. The Royal Society's Report says that the gaps created by their departure have caused difficulties in certain important branches of scientific research. It adds that there are now 20 Fellows in what are probably permanent appointments in the United States, which is approximately 3·5 per cent. of the total number of Fellows.
These are very high proportions indeed. They show that our accusations are correct. They show that we are, indeed, not training sufficient scientists, that we are not creating the right atmosphere in which to retain them and that those who remain here, like those at Risley, are not getting the sort of work which they should have if we are to induce them to stay with us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East mentioned the report by the F.B.I. I want to say something about that as well, because it is a very important problem which the Government must also face. We are reaching a situation in which, instead of the State merely undertaking education and pure research, it is expected, especially when it is the customer, to pay large sums for research and development applicable to its orders. The Government should tell us precisely the direction in which we are to go in this matter. The F.B.I. Report says on page 5:
Certain facts are operating to place limits on what private industry can do unaided. Modern developments are sometimes on so large a scale, or involve such costly apparatus, as to involve too great an economic base for single companies, or even consortia.
In the course of its recommendations the F.B.I. asks for considerations of public moneys. At the top of page 9 we have what is a gem of its type. It says:
As the proper criterion for a Government supported project is the benefit accruing to the national economy the Government should not be over-sensitive"—
a beautiful expression—

about possible advantages which might or might not accrue to the company to whom the project has been entrusted".
That is beautiful philosophy. It is competitive private enterprise at its best. We are in the position in which, if we are to get the production we have ordered from a firm or firms, a condition is that we must pay a huge dole of public money to them.
I believe that out of this we must look at the attitude being adopted towards public enterprise by the Government. Last Wednesday, I listened in another place to the debate on the nuclear energy industry. I do not want to enter too much into the merits of the case, but I quote Lord Carrington who replied for the Government. He said:
It was largely because substantial public funds would be needed to develop the new sources of power that a separate public corporation was set up. If development had been left to industry the expenditure involved and the remoteness of commercial financial return would have meant that the development could have taken place only very slowly, if indeed at all.
The Minister is saying that such is the complexity of British industry now, so much need is there for research and development costing huge sums of money, that no private enterprise or consortia can possibly do it and, therefore, public enterprise must be set up which does not function on a profit basis and which is the only way in which the nation can make progress of this kind.
The noble Lord went to to say:
Lastly, the consortia build the nuclear power stations under contract to the Generating Boards. Basic research, and the development of nuclear power systems were so costly and such a long-term operation that it would not have been undertaken except at public expense by a body such as the Atomic Energy Authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 10th July, 1963; Vol. 251, c. 1443–7.]
At a time when the Leader of the House could be threatening more public ownership, in another place one of his colleagues said that the very condition upon which we could get new scientific industries was public ownership.
I am not saying that we grudge the great expenditure on research and development in these industries which is now taking place. It may well be that we are not as yet spending enough public money. What I am certain about is that we must now ask what return the nation is entitled to get from the expenditure


which is now entailed. This is part of the problem which hon. Members opposite have to answer and until they do we cannot get down to an analysis of their seriousness about their trying to get more and more science into industry.
There is a table of statistics which shows the results, or lack of them, of the Government's neglect of the application of science. Taking 1950 as the base year and equalling 100, West Germany now has 225, Italy 202, France 170, the Netherlands 158, and Britain 129. This is the direct result of the Government's failure to bring more and more possibility of better scientific education, to retain our scientists and to get more and more of a scientific base to British production.
As I said at the outset, I happen to believe that because of their philosophy hon. Members opposite cannot do this. This function is a function which the Labour movement has been produced to effect. In other words, we are not tied to any conventions of the past. I believe that we are a sort of political spearhead of the scientific revolution. Until we have a Government in power which can handle this thing despite conventions and with a grim determination to bring Britain abreast of the other great industrial manufacturing nations, until we can show the people that the expenditure of public money is necessary on education and on research and development, we cannot expect to get the results which we know that the genius of the British people is able to produce.
That is the message of this debate and I believe that it enhances the claim of the Labour movement that every hour that the discredited Government stay is a waste of time for the nation and that the sooner they go the better.

8.59 p.m.

The Secretary for Technical Co-operation (Mr. Robert Carr): Change is our ally but, alas, resistance to change is one of the strongest of human characteristics. This is one of the great problems which any government have to face in this as in many other respects. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) enjoyed himself. He usually does in these debates and I have much enjoyed debating Ministry of Labour matters with him in previous years.
The hon. Member had something to say about progressive Tories. The country, alas, also suffers from some diehard Socialists. The hon. Gentleman said in his closing remarks that the Labour Party was not tied to any conventions of the past, but surely no organisations and no institutions in this country are more bound to hallowed traditions of past outlook and methods than the trade unions? And this is believed by many people on the Left as well as on the Right. Many of these hallowed traditions are, of course, extremely good.
I agree, willingly, that employers also can be resistant to change, but when the hon. Gentleman tries to say that the Labour Party is not bound to any conventions of the past, I really think that he should think a little more deeply about it. He says that he wants a Government who are not too gentle with industry. Does he really mean that?

Mr. Lee: Yes.

Mr. Carr: Does the hon. Gentleman mean not too gentle with both sides of industry?

Mr. Lee: Yes.

Mr. Carr: Is it only the employers with whom the hon. Gentleman wants to get tough, or does he want to get tough with the trade unions as well? I do not believe that we shall make progress in overcoming resistance to change wherever it may occur by getting tough with people in that sort of way, because most of these attitudes are based on experience in the past and have to be overcome by much more gentle and persuasive means.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), in opening the debate, referred to purity of education in the classics and the humanities. Like the hon. Member for Newton, I sully this record. If the debate started with Front Bench speeches of this purity, I am afraid that it ends on a much more earthy note. I confess to having taken a degree in natural science and to having worked in industry at various levels as trainee, as technician, as technologist, and, finally, I liked to call myself a scientist. So that I have seen it at all levels.
I think that this experience is valuable, and I was glad to hear the remarks made today by a number of my hon. Friends


about the report on "Science in Industry", produced by a small committee of which I had the honour to be chairman. Like all chairmen, I did very little of the thinking. I merely presided, but my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) was a member of that committee, as were my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), and other hon. Members, and distinguished people from outside the House.
I was glad to hear the recommendations in that report urged as they were today by my hon. Friends. This puts me in a slightly interesting position. I joined my colleagues on that committee in urging these recommendations on the Government when I was a back-bencher. I believed in them then, and I believe in them now, and I shall continue, in so far as my opportunities in my present office allow, to go on urging those points on my right hon. Friends in the Government. Nobody gets everything he wants, but I believe that many developments which have already taken place are moving in some of the directions advocated in this report, and I am satisfied that all those measures, even if they are not all accepted, will be, and are being, seriously studied. This is a fact and not just a phrase.
In spite of the criticisms from the benches opposite, I think that there has been much agreement that considerable progress has been made in this matter in recent years. I assure the Committee that the Government are not complacent about what still has to be done. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green said, this matter of science is of particular importance for this country, more than for any other country, but I must reject the charge made against both my noble Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science that they are complacent, or that there is some inherent streak in their philosophy which makes success and further progress in this field impossible. I cannot understand how so much progress has been made under my noble Friend's guidance in the last four years if that can be so, and this is a matter to which I hope to return later.
A great many points have been raised on both sides of the Committee and I cannot possibly hope to deal with all of them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green said that this was a Committee of the House of Commons playing its proper part in the decision-taking process rather than commenting helplessly on decisions when they have been made. I can assure him and the whole Committee that the points which have been made, from wherever they came, will be properly considered.
Many of the points which have been raised today deal with questions of higher education. Although they are relevant to today's debate, the Committee will be aware that there is on Wednesday a debate dealing specifically with this question of higher education, so I am sure that hon. Members will excuse me if I do not answer many of those points tonight.
One point which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely I particularly want to take up. That was the rôle of our scientific effort in the future of the Commonwealth. The British scientific effort overseas is something which has not been mentioned to any great extent in today's debate, and it is, of course, of particular interest to me in my capacity as Secretary for Technical Co-operation. I am sure that it is a matter of great importance to all developing countries and, in particular, to the Commonwealth.
In many of those countries it is natural to look to us in Britain as the source of the old skills and the old institutions: parliamentary government, our systems of law, public administration and the like. We are welcomed and looked to for guidance in these matters, and that is something which is immensely important. But, in the long run, it seems to me at least as important both for the Commonwealth and for the strengthening of British influence in the world that we should be looked upon also, and equally, as a source of new skills and new ideas. There, of course, one thinks particularly of the fields of science and technology.
The Committee should be aware therefore, that in the current year public expenditure on research overseas, mainly in the Commonwealth, amounts to no less than £2 million. We have a number of home-based scientific units all concerned


with the problems of the developing countries, mainly in the Commonwealth. There is the Anti-locust Research Centre, in which I think that it is generally accepted we lead the world and give service not only in the Commonwealth countries, but; many others as well. There is the Tropical Products Institute, the Tropical Division of the Road Research Laboratory and the Building Research Station. There is the Tropical Stored Products Centre in association with the Agricultural Research Council and the Tropical Medicine Research Board working in collaboration with the Medical Research Council.
Then, in the Directorate of Overseas Surveys for which my Department is responsible we have a Land Use Section, which we are now strengthening further, and where soil scientists are doing immensely valuable scientific work in helping the development of the natural resources of many of the developing countries. This adds up to a very important effort and one which too often is not talked about and not known.
Not only do we do all this in this country, but we also help to maintain in whole or in part various centres overseas—Jamaica, Gambia, the Cameroon Republic, to give one or two examples. We sustain the post-graduate school of the Faculty of Agriculture in Trinidad, and altogether, as far as we can estimate at the moment, we have serving abroad, in these developing countries, just over 2,000 scientists.
This is a two-way traffic because, in addition to the 2,000 scientists serving overseas, which is a pretty substantial call on our scientific manpower we also welcome over here—and there is some immigration of people in this field—about 4,300 scientific students at our universities and about 8,600 at technical colleges. This is a very substantial effort in assisting scientific development in Commonwealth countries and also in other underdeveloped countries. I felt that no debate on the subject of science and Government scientific effort would be complete without drawing the attention of the Committee to the important part played overseas in this way, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely for stressing its importance.
I now want to turn my attention to what, from such practical experience as

I have had, I believe to be an immensely important question when considering the development of science and technology in this country. We clamour for more money. We clamour for more scientists, more technologists, and more laboratories—and all these are very important. We have been getting more and more of them, but we still need more and more. But proper results will not be achieved unless we back this direct increase in our scientific effort with the right sort of supporting effort. We must get the best use out of our scientists and technologists, and this is a field in which Britain has not always been very good.
My experience, such as it is, leads me to believe that concentration on this supporting effort is at least as important as concentration on still further expanding the numbers of scientists and technologists and the like, important though that is. Less newsworthy and less exciting, but equally important. Here I agree in part with what was said by the hon. Member for Coventry, East and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green and others—that one of the greatest problems that we have is to overcome the separation which exists in this country between scientists and technologists, and managers, or administrators. Hon. Members are correct when they say that part of this problem springs from the bias in our social system. I do not believe that this is something which can be corrected by brute force. More subtlety, patience and persuasion is needed.
But, principally, we must go about the problem by making these different sorts of people rub shoulders. We have to get our scientists, economists and accountants rubbing shoulders and working with managers and administrators, both in industry and the Government. Here, we come straight up against the question of the appropriate staffing of Government Departments, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members and which was one of the recommendations in the report to which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred.
This and other problems about the organisation of Government scientific administration have been referred to the Trend Committee, which is expected to report in the next few months. I simply cannot antic pate the findings of that


Committee. But hon. Members should not be sceptical about such a Committee's need to study this question. The sort of proposals which are made raise important innovations, which need study—and they are being studied, although I cannot forecast the result.
I think that it should be pointed out that, in principle, the Government have already shown that there is nothing against the adoption of the sort of recommendations people have been talking about today, and perhaps the most outstanding proof of that, but only one example, is the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works in setting up his new Development Section under Sir Donald Gibson. There are also economists in the Treasury, some of whom have not spent their lives there—the Chief Economic Adviser to the Government is a case in point. So this principle of bringing in economists and scientists to assist in this sort of planning and administrating is something which is accepted in principle by the Government already, but the extent and the form that it should take is, as I say, a matter now being considered by the Trend Committee.
I want to emphasise that this consideration by the Trend Committee is important not only in relation to the decision taking process in allocating priorities between our scientific resources, and in setting the pattern of our effort in. a more logical menner—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green said, in a manner more consciously consistent with a judgment of economic advantage; it is not only that sort of issue which is at stake but the much wider issue of the whole outlook of Government in pushing it in a directed and conscious manner. We have to make sure that the best use is made of the Government's power as a buyer, and efforts are already made in that direction and have been for a long time, so there is nothing new in that.
But we must realise that changes by the Government, whether changes in the tax structure, tariffs, or other fields of policy, can affect scientific and technical progress, either for good or for ill. What I am sure we are all seeking for, the Government as much as anybody else, is

to make sure that these considerations are taken into account. It is the methods which must be carefully looked at and decisions taken upon.
Following up this theme of supporting our direct scientific effort, I think that the Committee should be aware of some of the other things the Government have recently done, for example, the most important Measure, included in. the recent Finance Bill, for the relief of capital expenditure connected with scientific research. That relief will now be given to a trader in one single allowance of 100 per cent. instead of spreading it, as before, over five years. Expenditure on new buildings, plant and machinery used for scientific research in connection with a trade will qualify for the increase in the investment allowance from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. So the total allowance is thus 130 per cent of the cost, and I venture to suggest that this is, by any standard, an important and generous encouragement to the development of science and technology in industry.
Then another very important work which the Government have been sponsoring in recent years, though, perhaps, its scale can be still further increased, is trying to help industry to identify its needs for scientific and technological advance and stimulating action to satisfy those needs. The Committee ought to bear in mind the various inquiries carried out by the D.S.I.R. into industries such as the machine tool industry, and shipbuilding and marine engineering, and, most recently, by the Feilden Committee into engineering design, whose report, as my hon. Friend said, is due to be published in a few days' time. It is necessary to back up scientific effort with an effort to improve the quality of management, because there is undoubtedly a direct correlation between a scientific approach to management itself and the comprehension of technical opportunities and needs. Only a few weeks ago the Government announced further financial support of universities to help in an increase in management studies.
Social studies are also important because, as I said in my opening remarks, we are here dealing to a large extent with human attitudes, and the work done by the Social Sciences Committee of the D.S.I.R. in recent years has been


valuable. Only just under a month ago the Government announced the setting up of a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Heyworth to make a further survey into the needs for research in the social sciences.

Mrs. Hart: Is the hon. Member aware that it is three years since we asked for a social research council to be set up? It is not right for him to take credit for setting up a committee of inquiry rather than setting up what was requested three years ago.

Mr. Carr: On the whole it is wiser to do these things with one's eyes open and after proper study. As I said, much important work has been done in this by D.S.I.R. and this is a very proper follow-up.
Another most important matter which has been mentioned today is development contracts. This is an obvious way in which the Government can stimulate the growth of science and technology in industry, and it is not new. It is already an established practice. There are already three examples of civil development contracts which have been placed, the total value of which is £600,000, a fairly sizeable sum, and a fourth project of some importance is under negotiation.
D.S.I.R. is taking action to try to speed this progress. It has not been going as fast as we should like. Hitherto, it has been a matter of waiting for industry to come forward with suggestions. For the future, in the machine tool industry as a start, we have set up a joint committee which will positively go out to look for proposals and which will be assisted in its looking by specialist help where it may be required. If this machinery works in the machine tool industry, it will be adopted for other industries, too. D.S.I.R. is going out to advertise more widely the fact that it is willing and able to consider the granting of civil development contracts.
Another recent development which is important and which is allied to it is the fact that there have been earmarked grants for research associations, which I think meets one of the points in the report to which my hon. Friend referred and which has been mentioned by hon. Members opposite. In this broad field of development contracts we must not forget the Concord airliner project. This

may not be a development contract in the ordinary sense, but it is clearly an extremely important project in which Government money is being spent, in co-operation with another country, not simply to produce a new generation of air liner, which we hope in the end will stand on its own commercial merit, but also in the process to promote developments in many important by-products in the technological field.

Mr. Lubbock: In discussing this project will the Minister answer a question which he has been asked about how the Government will recoup this money which they are pumping into private industry—£85 million?

Mr. Carr: Clearly, I cannot do that tonight. We cannot have this both ways. Proper provision must be made for a fair return for the Government, and it will be made, but some pump priming must be done in this field and therefore some risks must be taken on all sides for the benefits to be gained.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) asked about space. The Government's space programme has three clearly defined aims. The first is research into conditions in space by sending up sounding rockets and satellites like Aerial, and joining in the European Space Research Organisation. Secondly, the Government are supporting a research programme of launcher technology with the European Launcher Development Organisation, based on Blue Streak. Finally, there is a programme of research on satellite communications run by the Post Office.
We do not believe that this country can on its own, or even in co-operation, as we are co-operating, with European countries, embark on a vast programme. It would be too big a diversion. However, we believe that we have clear objectives which we are pushing forward in a determined and properly planned way.
In conclusion, I want to draw together some of the overall isues which have been raised in the debate by the Opposition. A great deal has been made about the brain drain. It is a serious loss, but it is absolute nonsense for the hon. Member for Newton to say that there is not the slightest return. The new head of the National Chemical Laboratory is a New Zealander who went to America, is a professor in


America, and is now coming here to head our National Chemical Laboratory. The chairman of the very Royal Society Committee whose report has been quoted so much today was himself at one time a professor at an American university. It is not right to paint such a picture of gloom as the hon. Member for Coventry, East painted.
If everything is so bad and if morale is so low, how does one explain the galaxy of Nobel Prize winners? Of course, the losses are serious. Nobody denies that, but it is nonsense to exaggerate in the way that hon. Members opposite do.
There is one other thing which shows just how nonsensical it is. Where are these people going to—to America. What is America? Is it the home, the Mecca, of Socialist planning? We have been told today that these problems cannot be solved under a free enterprise philosophy. It is relevant to note that these scientists are going from here, not to a Mecca of Socialist planning, but to a Mecca of free enterprise. The argument of the Socialist Party is nonsensical.

The hon. Member for Coventry, East said that my noble Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary were proud of their incapacity to do anything. The total civil expenditure on research has increased by 193 per cent. since 1955. The total Government expenditure on civil research has increased by 212 per cent. between 1955 and 1961–62 and is rising by a further 25per cent. this year. A tremendous effort is being made all the way along the line. The total expenditure by private industry has also risen by 210 per cent. in these years. The percentage of our gross national product being spent on research and development is now equal to that of the United States of America and higher than that of either France or Germany. If this is an incapacity to do anything, we say, "Give us more of it and let us make more progress".

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move,
That a sum, not exceeding £103,000, be granted for the said Service.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 235.

Division No. 162.]
AYES
[9.28 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Donnelly, Desmond
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Albu, Austen
Driberg, Tom
Hunter, A. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Barnett, Guy
Edelman, Maurice
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Beaney, Alan
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Benson, Sir George
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Blyton, William
Evans, Albert
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boardman, H.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Finch, Harold
Kelley, Richard


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Fitch, Alan
Kenyon, Clifford


Bowles, Frank
Fletcher, Eric
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Boyden, James
Foley, M.
Lawson, George


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bradley, Tom
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ginsburg, David
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gourlay, Harry
Loughlin, Charles


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Greenwood, Anthony
Lubbock, Eric


Callaghan, James
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacColl, James


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacDermot, Niall


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Chapman, Donald
Gunter, Ray
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Cliffe, Michael
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McLeavy, Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hannan, William
Manuel, Archie


Cronin, John
Harper, Joseph
Mapp, Charles


Crosland, Anthony
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Marsh, Richard


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Mayhew, Christopher


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Healey, Denis
Mendelson, J. J.


Dalyell, Tam
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Millan, Bruce


Darling, George
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Milne, Edward


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hilton, A. V.
Mitchison, G. R,


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holman, Percy
Monslow, Walter


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Houghton, Douglas
Moody, A. S.


Deer, George
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Moyle, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Hoy, James H.
Mulley, Frederick


Dodds, Norman
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
O'Malley, B. K.




Oswald, Thomas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Owen, Will
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Paget, R. T.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Pargiter, G. A.
Ross, William
Tomney, Frank


Parker, John
Silkin, J.
Wade, Donald


Paton, John
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wainwright, Edwin


Pavitt, Laurence
Skeffington, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Weitzman, David


Peart, Frederick
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Popplewell, Ernest
Small, William
Whitlock, William


Prentice, R. E.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wigg, George


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wilkins, W. A.


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Frederick


Proctor, W. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Stonehouse, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Randall, Harry
Stones, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rankin, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Redhead, E. C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Woof, Robert


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Swain, Thomas
Wyatt, Woodrow


Reid, William
Swingler, Stephen
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Reynolds, G. W.
Symonds, J. B.



Rhodes, H.
Taverne, D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Mr. McCann and Mr. Ifor Davies




NOES


Aitken, Sir William
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Allason, James
Doughty, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Drayson, G. B.
Kimball, Marcus


Arbuthnot, John
du Cann, Edward
Kirk, Peter


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Eden, John
Kitson, Timothy


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Barber, Anthony
Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N,)
Leather, Sir Edwin


Barlow, Sir John
Emery, Peter
Leavey, J. A.


Barter, John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leburn, Gilmour


Batsford, Brian
Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Bell, Ronald
Fell, Anthony
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Fisher, Nigel
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Forrest, George
Loveys, Walter H.


Berkeley, Humphry
Foster, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Bidgood, John C.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Biffen, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Biggs-Davison, John
Freeth, Denzil
MacArthur, Ian


Bingham, R. M.
Gibson-Watt, David
McLaren, Martin


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bishop, F. P.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Gough, Frederick
Maitland, Sir John


Braine, Bernard
Gower, Raymond
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Brewis, John
Green, Alan
Marten, Neil


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Mathew, Robert (Honlton)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Brooman-White, R.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mawby, Ray


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bullard, Denys
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morgan, William


Burden, F. A.
Hastings, Stephen
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Neave, Airey


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Channon, H. P. G.
Hendry, Forbes
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Chataway, Christopher
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clarke, Brig, Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr-Ewing, Sir Charles


Cole, Norman
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cooke, Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hornby, R. P.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Costain, A. P.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Coulson, Michael
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Peel, John


Crowder, F. P.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cunningham, Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Curran, Charles
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pott, Percivall


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)







Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Vickers, Miss Joan


Pym, Francis
Stevens, Geoffrey
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Ramsden, James
Storey, Sir Samuel
Walder, David


Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Studholme, Sir Henry
Walker, Peter


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wall, Patrick


Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Talbot, John E.
Ward, Dame Irene


Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Tapsell, Peter
Webster, David


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Whitelaw, William


Robson Brown, Sir William
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Russell, Ronald
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Wise, A. R.


Seymour, Leslie
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Woodnutt, Mark


Sharples, Richard
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woollam, John


Shepherd, William
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Worsley, Marcus


Skeet, T. H. H.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon



Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Turner, Colin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smithers, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Spearman, Sir Alexander
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Finlay.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after half-past Nine o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

Question put and agreed.

The Chairman then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Ministry of Defence Estimate, and in the Navy, the Army, and the Air Estimates, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates; and that sanction be given to the application of the sums temporarily authorised in respect of the Navy, Army and Air Services [Expenditure]:

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1963–64

CLASS I

That a sum, not exceeding £59,175,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, viz.: —

£


1.
House of Lords
194,000


2.
House of Commons
1,172,000


4.
Privy Council Office
35,000


5.
Post Office Ministers
5,000


6.
Customs and Excise
14,602,000


7.
Inland Revenue
41,885,000


8.
Exchequer and Audit Department
400,000


9.
Civil Service Commission
460,000


10.
Royal Commissions, etc.
422,000




59,175,000

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS II

That a sum, not exceeding £102,483,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

£


1.
Foreign Service (including a Supplementary sum of £112,000)
15,645,000


2.
Foreign Grants and Loans (including a Supplementary sum of £164,000)
12,427,000


3.
British Council
3,106,000


4.
Commonwealth Relations Office
15,062,000


5.
Commonwealth Grants and Loans (including a Supplementary sum of £50,000)
9,225,000


6.
Colonial Office (including a Supplementary sum of £32,000)
5,303,000


7.
Colonial Grants and Loans (including a Supplementary sum of £346,000)
6,445,000


8.
Development and Welfare (Colonial Office)
11,700,000


9.
Department of Technical Co-operation (including a Supplementary sum of £167,000)
21,091,000


10.
Central African Office
1,019,000


11.
Development and Welfare (Central African Office)
650,000


12.
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
810,000




102,483,000

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS III

That a sum, not exceeding £101,782,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

£


1.
Home Office
7,943,000


2.
Scottish Home and Health Department
1,201,000

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS IV

That a sum, not exceeding £467,443,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessity to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

£


1.
Board of Trade
4,461,000


2.
Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports and Industrial Efficiency and Trading etc., Services)
4,309,000


3.
Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment) (including a Supplementary sum of £6,325,000)
21,850,000


4.
Export Credits
900


5.
Export Credits (Special Guarantees, etc.)
900


6.
Ministry of Labour
17,980,000


7.
Ministry of Aviation
180,670,000


8.
Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)
25,000,000


9.
Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services
7,300,000


10.
Ministry of Transport (including a Supplementary sum of £35,000)
3,230,000


11.
Roads, etc., England and Wales
96,261,000


12.
Roads, etc., Scotland
16,153,000


13.
Transport (Shipping and Special Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £1,501,000)
2,146,000


13A.
Transport (Shipping Loans)
1,000


14.
Transport (Railways and Waterways Board)
85,882,000


15.
Ministry of Power
2,199,000




467,443,800

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS V

That a sum, not exceeding £264,059,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

£


1.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
14,827,000


2.
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland
6,052,000


3.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)
48,990,000


4.
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)
8,642,000


5.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
145,630,000


6.
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
16,140,000


7.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural and Food Services)
8,871,000


8.
Food (Strategic Reserves)
1,453,000


9.
Fishery Grants and Services
3,594,000


10.
Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry
1,660,000


11.
Forestry Commission (including a Supplementary sum of £ 400,000)
8,200,000




264,059,000

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS VI

That a sum, not exceeding £1,695.150,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

£


1.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government (including a Supplementary sum of £48,000)
13,509,000


2.
Scottish Development Department
1,811,000


3.
Housing, England and Wales
49,422,000


4.
Housing, Scotland
8,920,000


5.
General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
377,325,000


6.
General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
44,096,000


7.
Rate Deficiency etc., Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
94,251,000


8.
Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
14,002,000

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS VII

That a sum, not exceeding £113,897,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

£


1.
Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain
69,452,000


3.
Atomic Energy
20,471,000


4.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
13,909,000


5.
Medical Research Council
4,458,000


6.
Agricultural Research Council
4,925,000


7.
Nature Conservancy
451,000


8.
Grants for Science
231,000




113,897,000

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

That a sum, not exceeding £4,263,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
British Museum
641,000


2.
British Museum (Natural History)
437,000


3.
Science Museum
235,000


4.
Victoria and Albert Museum (including a Supplementary sum of £27,000)
422,000


5.
Imperial War Museum
50,000


6.
London Museum
39,000


7.
National Gallery (including a Supplementary sum of £35,000)
122,000


8.
National Maritime Museum
74,000


9.
National Portrait Gallery
31,000


10.
Tate Gallery
60,000


11.
Wallace Collection
37,000


12.
Royal Scottish Museum
76,000


13.
National Galleries of Scotland
46,000


14.
National Library of Scotland
73,000


15.
National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland
17,000


16.
Grants for the Arts
1,903,000




4,263,000

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS IX

That a sum, not exceeding £194,809,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£


1.
Ministry of Public Building and Works
17,560,000


2.
Public Buildings, etc., United Kingdom
26,987,000


2A.
Earl Lloyd George Memorial
9,000


3.
Public Buildings Overseas
3,546,000


4.
Works and Buildings for the Admiralty
13,015,000


5.
Works and Buildings for the War Office
40,561,000


6.
Works and Buildings for the Air Ministry
31,630,000


7.
Houses of Parliament Buildings 
317,000


8.
Royal Palaces
521,000


9.
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
914,000


10.
Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
885,000


11.
Rates on Government Property
14,005,000

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS X

That a sum, not exceeding £4,873,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz:—

£


1.
Charity Commission
188,000


2.
Crown Estate Office
117,000


3.
Friendly Societies Registry
82,000


4.
Royal Mint
900


5.
National Debt Office
900


6.
Public Works Loan Commission
900


7.
Public Trustee
900


8.
Land Registry
900


9.
War Damage Commission
176,000


10.
Office of the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements
99,000


11.
Ordnance Survey
2,504,000


12.
Public Record Office
124,000


13.
Scottish Record Office
39,000


14.
Registrar General's Office
520,000


15.
Registrar General's Office, Scotland
60,000


16.
Department of the Registers of Scotland
900


17.
National Savings Committee
959,000




4,873,400

Question put and agreed to.

CLASS XI

That a sum, not exceeding £56,271,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class XI of the Civil Estimates, viz:—

£


1.
Broadcasting (including a Supplementary sum of £7,700,000) 
42,721,000


2.
Carlisle State Management District
900


3.
State Management Districts, Scotland
900


4.
Pensions, &amp;c. (India, Pakistan and Burma)
5,113,000


5.
Supplements to Pensions, &amp;c. (Overseas Services)
1,066,000


6.
Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &amp;c.
735,000

Question put and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1963–64

That a sum, not exceeding £13,380,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

Question put and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1963–64

That a sum, not exceeding £303,092,000,be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:—

£


2.
Royal Naval Reserves
1,292,000


3.
Admiralty Office
10,519,000


5.
Medical Services, Education and Civilians on Fleet Services
13,139,000


6.
Naval Stores, Armament, Victualling and other Material Supply Services
138,485,000


7.
H.M. Ships, Aircraft and Weapons, New Construction and Repairs
139,657,000




303,092,000

Question put and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1963–64

That a sum, not exceeding £273,920,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:—

£


3.
War Office
6,600,000


4.
Civilians at Outstations
111,020,000


5.
Movements
27,480,000


6.
Supplies
41,520,000


7.
Stores and Equipment
87,300,000




273,920,000

Question put and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1963–64

That a sum, not exceeding £129,880,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:—

£


3.
Air Ministry 
4,700,000


4.
Civilians at Outstations and the Meteorological Office
42,050.000


5.
Movements
13,760,000


6.
Supplies
52,600,000


8.
Lands and Works
2,340,000


10.
Non-effective Services
14,430,000




129,880,000

Question put and agreed to.

NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1961–62

That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £9,537,863 2s. 0d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March 1962, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 1st February, 1963 (H.C. 103) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 233).

Question put and agreed to.

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1961–62

That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £2,872,588 11s. 5d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March 1962, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 1st February 1963 (H.C. 107) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 233).

Question put and agreed to.

AIR EXPENDITURE, 1961–62

That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,460,592 9s. 8d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March 1962, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 2nd February 1963 (H.C. 124) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 233).

Question put and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow;

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY IN THE Chair]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, the sum of £3,787,264,400 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Barber.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow;

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), further considered.

New Clause.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF CASE COMMITTEES)

"(1) For the purposes of section 1 of this Act, every local authority shall establish a case committee. The Members of the case committee may be members of the local authority or persons specially qualified by reason of their knowledge of and interest in the welfare of children. For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, the members of the case committee shall be an interviewing panel of whom not more than five nor less than three shall sit at one time.

(2) The case committee shall exercise a general supervision over the casework of the children's officer and from time to time receive from him written or oral reports on the progress of children in care, affording to him such help and advice as they can.

(3) The case committee shall delegate to the interviewing panel the consideration of the welfare of any child—

(a) referred to them by a chief officer of police, or
(b) referred to them by the chief education officer of their area, or
(c) whose parent or guardian is dissatisfied with a decision of the local authority not to receive him into care, or
(d) whose welfare, in the opinion of the children's officer, presents special difficulty, or
(e) in respect of whom the children's officer is unable to secure the agreement of the parent or guardian for the care, training or treatment, which he thinks appropriate, or
(f) in respect of whom it is proposed to assume parental rights under section 2 of the Children Act 1948.

(4) For the purposes of section 2 of this Act (which provides for children and young persons in need of care, protection or control) it shall be evidence that a child or young person is not receiving such care, protection and guidance as a good parent may reasonably be expected to give if he or his parent or guardian or both have failed to attend a meeting of the interviewing panel to which they have been called."—[Mr. MacColl.]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [5th July], That the Clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

9.48 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: When I spoke on this matter on 5th July, I expressed amazement at the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to dispose of the issues before the House at that time in a matter of a few minutes. The more I consider what he said on that day the more I am satisfied that my view was right, and I hope that in the meantime the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have had time to think over the position and see whether they can change their minds in relation to the Clause.
This Clause was fully and aptly explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. McColl) who, of all people, is fully entitled to have his views considered and, in consequence of his tremendous experience, to have them considered particularly by the Home Secretary. What does the Home Secretary say?—
We all want to keep children out of court, if we can.
Within a few minutes, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The Ingleby Committee, having very pains-takingly examined these possibilities, reached the conclusion that there was no real alternative of a social welfare character to taking a number of children to court.
We say that we want to take such steps as we possibly canto reduce to the bare minimum the numbers who are taken to court. I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the speech which he made and see whether what we propose does not go a considerable way towards keeping children out of court. That is the primary and the full object of the Bill.
Those of us who know something of it realise that an attempt is being made here to enable children to be kept out of

the juvenile courts, and particularly those who are in need of care and attention, so that they may be restored to a condition of happiness and understanding without the necessity of appearing before a tribunal.
We are trying to round off the whole matter by suggesting certain methods which should be adopted by all local authorities. The responsibility is ours. We are introducing this Measure, we are imposing upon the local authorities an obligation and it is our duty to ensure that what we ask them to do has a type of machinery which enables them to understand what we are driving at and how the work is to be done effectively.
What does the Home Secretary say? It was very kind of him when, in the few minutes in which he spoke, he said
I agree with my hon. Friend, too, that today's debate will be read with great interest by children's officers, chairmen of children's committees, town clerks and others. I hope that they will read the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes and study the ideas that he developed. I hope that they will gain ideas from his speech which will be valuable in their own localities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 821–2.]
The Home Secretary said that that was surely a better way than directing local authorities as my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes wanted and was what, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman was commending to the attention of the various authorities who had to put these proposals into effect.
To say that what somebody has proposed is the correct way of dealing with a situation and to commend it to those who have to put an Act of Parliament into effect, and then immediately to say, "But we will let you use your discretion whether you agree with the view I am taking of the matter in commending these views to you" is not a logical way of looking at the matter.
We represent the people, and the obligation is ours to make proper provision for a child who is put into the care of a local authority. I say with the greatest respect that not all local authorities have the wisdom that is necessary to be able to prepare machinery which can be effective for the purposes which we in the House of Commons direct them to exercise. Why should not we devise a method on the lines indicated in the new Clause which could be given to local authorities for them to carry into effect.
Do we not have in mind the interests of the child? Do we as a House of Commons—in other words, does the country—think that if a child is put into the care of a local authority, there should not be a case committee? Why should there not be a case committee? It cannot understand any hon. Member disagreeing with the idea that a smaller committee than the children's committee should be appointed to do this work instead of the children's committee being encumbered with other matters on the administrative side. Why do we not do what we do in the case of the juvenile courts? The Home Secretary directs them to do to a very considerable extent what we are asking for here. Does the right hon. Gentleman think he is wrong? Is he prepared to delegate his authority with regard to procedure to some other body? Of course not. He knows very well that care for children with criminal tendencies or who make mistakes is one of his chief duties. That being so, if he tells courts exactly what they are to do, why should he not do the same thing when he hands the same children over to another authority?
Surely the right hon. Gentleman has not come to the conclusion that case committees are no use? What about the smaller committee? Does he not agree that the children's officer should have not only the opportunity to go to a case committee but also the benefit of being in constant contact with a smaller body, of perhaps three or five people to whom he can go for advice at any time any day whenever a contingency arises? What is wrong about that?
I could understand it if the right hon. Gentleman said "These proposals do not quite meet the position. We are prepared to listen to alternatives." But he says that the whole matter should be thrown over to the local authority. Is he satisfied that every local authority is doing everything he wants it to do in every respect? Does he really think that there are not some local authorities which would not undertake the important duty of ensuring that every child that comes within its care is not only used as an instrument to be cared for by a machine but has the full benefit of human understanding by people who know what they are talking about and

can be appointed by reason of their experience? That is all that we are asking for? Why does he hesitate?
This is an extremely important matter. I cannot agree that the Home Secretary should just brush it aside saying, "Your ideas are fine, and I approve of them. When people read about them, they will realise what great thought there is behind them", but taking no further action. What does he mean by that? What he is saying is that they should be approved. Why should he not say definitely "Approve them", and there would be an end of it. The case committee is essential. It is not a question of the discretion of any body. It is highly essential—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Sir B. Janner: I want to conclude with an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He should not ignore the fact that this responsibility of ours is of a very high nature. There is a human element involved. I hope that, having considered what I have said, or at least what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes has said, the right hon. Gentleman will come to the conclusion that the only right thing to do is to direct from the centre exactly how these committees and councils are to work.
I should say that I am not expressing the view of the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I have the privilege to be a vice-president, for there is a difference of opinion on this. But I believe my view to be correct, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to this very reasonable request.

Mr. William Hannan: I, too, ask the Home Secretary to reconsider his attitude. This new Clause would have a strong bearing on Clause 1, which is the hub of the Bill, dealing with the prevention of the neglect of children. The right hon. Gentleman said on 5th July:
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Widnes is anxious to devise an alternative system to bringing children into court..


The Ingleby Committee.. reached the conclusion that there was no real alternative of a social welfare character to taking a number of children into court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1963; Vol. 680, c. 822.]
But that is not accurate. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Ingleby Committee suggested that it should not be possible for parents to take children to court, and that his own Bill limits the number of people who can take children to court. Probably the best answer to the problem he enunciated is contained in an article in the Observer on 28th October, 1962, in which a lady well known to the House, Phyllis Marks, said:
In the course of several visits abroad as a magistrate, I have often had to explain defensively, but with no inner conviction, why we bring children under 14 before our courts. One feels something of a barbarian when, for example, a Danish judge says, 'We are not interested in whether the child is proved a criminal or not. We only try to find out if this is a child who needs help'.
That is a wise and sensible approach to the problem. It is not delinquent children so often but delinquent parents who are responsible—for instance, the mother who cannot cope or is married to an alcoholic or a man who misspends his income. Surely the children are not responsible for that. Since Clause 1 applies to Scotland, there is also a responsibility on the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I see in his place, to try to coax—or browbeat, if that is possible—the Home Secretary into a more reasonable attitude.
This immediately brings us back to the Mc Boyle Report, which was not available until after the Bill had had its Second Reading. Some of that Report's most important paragraphs are on precisely this point. About the difficulty of the detection of the neglect of children, the Report says that where there is talk of courts and the law, it is more difficult for cases to be reported to the authorities simply because of the disinclination of many people, professional and otherwise, to come forward with information if it means a day from work. In the meantime, a child may be suffering if not physically, then mentally or spiritually.
Doctors, social workers, relatives and teachers are in a position to recognise when a child is suffering from neglect. Visitors to such homes can see the con-

ditions—lack of food or heating or bedding. Teachers know the children and can pick out the child who is ill-clad, or withdrawn, or apathetic, or absent from school. Neighbours know when children are left alone for long periods, although that does not always mean serious neglect for there are many parents who, while not having the standards which would be generally approved, do not necessarily neglect their children. The McBoyle Report asks why it is that even with such indications of neglect, these conditions do not more often lead to remedial action. It is because relatives and neighbours are disinclined to report matters.
It goes on to say that if the preventive services were allowed to continue to seem to be connected with courts and with the law, little help could be expected from outside their ranks because of people's natural disinclination to be classified as informers. If the necessary information is unlikely to reach the preventive services unless they are clearly seen by professional and lay people to be identified with welfare services, this will continue to be the position.
The McBoyle Report suggested that the long-term answer was a welfare service, a welfare family unit, but in the short term local authorities in Scotland, and I think in England and Wales, in the 1950s were asked to appoint an officer to undertake the co-ordination of all statutory and voluntary bodies in their areas likely to have any knowledge of cruelty to or neglect of children. Six years later, only 22 authorities in Scotland had set up such committees, and even they did not then meet regularly, and 42 had appointed co-ordinating officers. By February, 1962, 31 authorities had appointed co-ordinating committees and 46 had appointed officers of whom 20 were children's officers. The McBoyle Report recommends that it should be the children's officers who should be designated for these purposes. My Scottish colleagues and I would like to know what progress has been made in this matter and whether more officers have been appointed.
Whatever the improvement of recent years, the bulk of the evidence which the McBoyle Committee received shows that


the present arrangements for the co-ordination of preventive work do not work satisfactorily. That is a grave statement. In view of the sincere speeches and in view of the Ingleby Report which supports our purposes, even if he is not able to go all the way to meet us, I hope that the Home Secretary will agree, when all the tendency with the prevention of cruelty to children is to keep the children out of the courts, to act in accordance with the majority wishes of hon. Members and people outside the House and to accept our proposal.

Miss Alice Bacon: We tabled this new Clause for two purposes. First, to obtain a better working of Clause 1. We have had three excellent speeches from this side of the House showing how this new Clause would help the better working of Clause 1, and I do not propose to repeat what has been said.
The second reason for tabling the new Clause was to answer the question: what should we do with those under the age of criminal responsibility when they cannot be charged with having committed a crime? The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), with whom I usually agree on these matters, has tabled an Amendment which seeks to answer this question, but I disagree with her Amendment because I believe that the case committee is much the better way of dealing with a child under the age of criminal responsibility.
We have tabled an Amendment to increase the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12. We tabled a similar Amendment during the Committee stage upstairs. It may be that this Amendment will not be called, but when in Committee upstairs we were asked by the right hon. Gentleman what we were going to do to deal with children who were under the age of criminal responsibility now that we were raising the age from 8 to 10, or, as we desire, from 8 to 12, or even higher?
The right hon. Gentleman said during our proceedings in Committee upstairs on 9th May:
First, what does one do about the boy, a little below the age of criminal responsibility whatever that may be, who breaks somebody's window or is believed to have stolen something

from Woolworths? We have to find a practical answer, and I submit that it is not enough to say that we ought to be able to leave the problem to the educational system or to social welfare, or the guardianship court, or any other authority, unless we know precisely what it is we are leaving to them. I am inclined to criticise those who, in the editorial columns of The Times, have sought to find fault with the Government, and with myself, for not producing a solution when nobody has produced an adequate solution up to now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 9th May, 1963, c. 446.]
The right hon. Gentleman then wanted us to produce a detailed solution, and yet towards the end of our last sitting on the Report stage he said just the opposite. He said that we ought not to be tied down to details of this kind.
The right hon. Gentleman knocks down whatever argument we put forward. First, he says that we must not be too specific, and then he asks for more details. We believe that this case committee could deal with many children without them going to court at all. Not only do I not want children to be charged with a crime; I do not want them to be taken before the courts at all. We believe that this case committee is a way of keeping very young children out of the courts.
Because of this, and because the new Clause will facilitate the working of Clause 1, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give way on this, although he has said that he will not. If he does not, and if he adheres to the speech that he made at our last sitting when this subject was being debated, I think that we must show our dissatisfaction and vote for this new Clause in the Division Lobby.

10.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): In view of the ten days' interval, if I might have permission to speak again, I should like to remind the House that the issue between us is whether we should give local authorities discretion to do a job in what seems to the elected members the best way in relation to the circumstances of the area, or whether we should do what in my submission Parliament should always be chary of doing, namely, lay down in great detail, as the new Clause does, the precise administrative machinery which every local authority must wear as a straitjacket, whether its elected members believe that this is


the most appropriate method for the particular needs of the place or not. We are all at one that children should be kept out of the juvenile court wherever possible and that taking them to the court should be the last recourse and not the first.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I read the Clause very carefully and, as far as I know, it does not specify in detail what the case committee has to do. It merely says that when it finds an appropriate case it shall refer it for consideration. The right hon. Gentleman sometimes in his arguments appears to us, with all his virtues, to convey a somewhat dishonest method of argument. The detail has no relation at all to what the case committee has to do. It is merely allocating the type of case necessary for consideration. Having done that, it is for the case committee to say, "We think that on the whole it is a matter for consideration by the appropriate authority." Is that not true?

Mr. Brooke: I sought to obtain the leave of the House to speak again and then the hon. Member interrupts my speech when I have hardly begun it. Perhaps he will allow me to develop my argument as I would wish to do.
The Clause does not tell the committee in detail what it is to do in every case, but it lays down in considerable detail the precise administrative machinery. I shall seek to show that that machinery would cause some confusion in relation to the established responsibility of the children's committee.
First, on the matter of keeping children out of court, I am quite certain that every children's authority in the country is reluctant to take a child to court unless it is absolutely necessary. If the parents are co-operative then it may well not be necessary. As the Ingleby Committee pointed out, all these provisions of a social welfare character will carry one along for the period during which the parents are willing to co-operate, but if the time comes when they are not willing to co-operate then all the social welfare arrangements lose their power and, in the end, the child has to be brought to court. I do not see in this Clause anything which is likely to compel a parent to co-operate. There are certain provisions which indicate rather surprisingly

that a parent who, for one reason or another, does not attend before an interviewing panel may find that regarded as proof that he is not giving proper care and attention to his child. That seems to me a very special treatment of parents.

Mr. James MacColl: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman listened to my speech and, therefore, must have heard what I said. I did not say that it was proof. I said that it was evidence, and even the right hon. Gentleman, as a layman, is not entitled to say in this House that proof is the same as evidence. Admissable evidence is one thing; proof is another. The right hon. Gentleman should not mislead the House.

Mr. Brooke: There is no question of my misleading the House. It certainly seems that, under this Clause the parents will be presumed to be not giving proper care and attention to their child if, for whatever cause—it may be a good cause—they do not attend the meetings, but this is a minor point. The major point is what attitude Parliament is to adopt towards local authorities.
Hon. Members who have spoken will grant me this. I have some experience of local authority work, and I can tell the House that there is hardly a local authority in the country which would not demur at this kind of treatment by Parliament, if Parliament sought first to impose upon it a general duty to try to prevent the breaking up of homes and were then to dictate to it in detail the machinery by which it should proceed.
Moreover, the functions of the case committee, as set out in the new Clause, will go some way beyond Clause 1, even though, at the beginning of the new Clause, it is stated that the case committee shall operate
For the purposes of section 1 of this Act.
There is no doubt that if the case committee is to exercise a general supervision over the casework of a children's officer, according to subsection (2) of the new Clause, a great deal of that casework will lie outside the scope of Clause 1. The children's officer will find himself or herself serving two masters.
That is exactly the sort of thing that we should avoid in arranging this administrative machinery. It is another


and more technical reason why a local authority would jib at being instructed that it was to carry out its functions under Clause 1 in this way and in no other. I would remind the House of two things. First, in the history of the children's service, since it was reorganised and revitalised by the 1948 Act, there have been very few occasions when there has been what might be called a breakdown in communications between the Home Office and a particular children's authority. On the whole, children's authorities have worked in the closest concert with the Home Office. On the whole, they have done their job extremely well. Almost without exception they have been willing to listen to suggestions or criticisms from the Home Office if they were in any way slipping and not doing what they should be doing. This is not a service which one needs to approach with a bludgeon in one's hand.
Under Section 39 of the Children Act, 1948, a children's committee already has wide powers to establish, at its discretion, sub-committees, which may include
persons specially qualified by reason of experience or training in matters relating to the functions of the committee …
That is to say, children's authorities throughout the country have power to set up committees of this character, to do this kind of work in this kind of way, and there is no need to prescribe to them that they should do so.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) claimed that all that he was doing was to suggest some methods to local authorities and to indicate to local authorities how they might do this. But that is not what the Clause does. The Clause lays down what they should do, which is a very different matter from suggesting. If this Clause were incorporated into the Bill local authorities would have no choice. They would have to adopt this method and no other, and would have to adopt it for Clause 1, when the Measure came into force, even though this would not tie in conveniently with the arrangements that they were making for all their other child work under the Children Act.

Sir B. Janner: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that if that was the interpretation he put upon what I said it was not what I intended to convey. I was

suggesting it to him, and not to local authorities. These were suggestions made to him, which we hoped he would adopt.

Mr. Brooke: I took down the hon. Member's words as best I could. He spoke of "indicating to local authorities". This new Clause is much more than an indication; it is an order to local authorities. That is what divides us.

Mr. Hale: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us where there is an order in this Clause at all? The operative words are:
The case committee shall delegate to the interviewing panel the consideration of the welfare of any child".
What is there obligatory, mandatory, declaratory in that? It is an advisory proposition in the interests of the child.

Mr. Brooke: What the new Clause says is that
For the purposes of Section 1 of this Act, every local authority shall establish a case committee.

Mr. Hale: For consideration.

Mr. Brooke: It says that
the case committee shall exercise a general supervision over the casework of the children's officer. … The case committee shall delegate to the interviewing panel"—
six matters which are laid down there. That may cut right across the satisfactory manner in which the local authority is discharging already all the other functions under the Children Act which are being added to by Clause 1 of this Bill. If this new Clause were incorporated in the Bill, then however well those arrangements were working the authority would have to modify them in order to fit in with the mandatory terms of this new Clause. I submit that this is really not the right way to legislate for the relationship between Parliament and the local authorities, and I believe I have every local authority up and down the country behind me in saying those words, and I hope the House will reject the new Clause.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I should like to refer my right hon. Friend to subsection (3,d) which says:
whose welfare, in the opinion of the children's officer presents special difficulty".


That is something which occurs from time to time, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will give us in some detail the Government's view on that paragraph.

Mr. Brooke: I think it is not very easy for me to explain in detail the full significance of wording for which I am not responsible. It is true that the children's committee already has special responsibility towards children of this type, but the point here is that under the most important Clause of this Bill the children's authority is being given new powers to step in at an earlier stage than hitherto it has been able to do, in order to try to save a situation arising where the child may have to be taken into care, because there is no other means of looking after its welfare.
I think that we all, without difference of party, would agree that if the family can be kept together without damage to the well-being of the child then that will, in general, be always the best solution.

Miss Joan Vickers: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question, in view of the remarks I made at a previous sitting. I feel it is essential that we should have some form of case committee although I do not agree with the details as laid out in the new Clause—

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure what is happening, but if the hon. Lady wishes to speak again, having spoken once, she requires the leave of the House to do so.

Miss Vickers: The last time I spoke was on another day, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: But on the same Question. The hon. Lady may get the leave of the House if she asks for it. All I am saying is that she requires it.

Miss Vickers: May I have the leave of the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"] I would ask my right hon. Friend, if the hon. Gentleman opposite would agree, to consider the establishment of a case committee, but ending subsection (1) with the words
interest in the welfare of children",

I think it is advisable to put into the Bill provision for some type of case committee, although I agree with my right hon. Friend in feeling that we should not perhaps lay out the provision in the detail set out here.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Hale: I understand that it is the desire of my hon. Friends to test the opinion of the House on this matter, and I have no wish to detain them. I will, therefore, confine myself to two or at most three minutes. First, I would say—and not with any desire to be discourteous to the Home Secretary—that I do not think that I have ever heard a more dishonest speech from the Front Bench than his. He has grossly misrepresented every word in the Amendment. He appears to have done it deliberately, and it is fair respect to his intelligence to say that he surely could not have done so by inadvertence or lack of understanding.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Accusations of deliberate misrepresentation in a personal form must be withdrawn. They are not within the rules of order.

Mr. Hale: With my respect for the Chair and the feeling which I have for the Home Secretary—I never wish to be rude to him—you place me, Mr. Speaker, in some difficulty. With the respect which I have for you as the most distinguished occupant of the Chair for many years, you place me in a position in which I feel that I cannot withdraw an allegation in this matter when every hon. Member here knows that there has been gross, deliberate misrepresentation. In the circumstances, I cannot do it.
Out of respect for you, I will withdraw from the House at the conclusion of my speech. Indeed, I will do so now rather than consent to take part in something which to me, whatever is due in courtesy to the House, would be an act of dishonesty to which, in the circumstances concerning the welfare of children, I could not commit myself.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 175.

Division No. 163.]
AYES
[10.32 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Beaney, Alan
Boardman, H.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Blyton, William
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)




Bowles, Frank
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bradley, Tom
Holman, Percy
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Houghton, Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hoy, James H.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hunter, A. E.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Ross, William


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Sir Barnett
Silkin, J.


Cliffe, Michael
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Skeffington, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, L. M, (Ardwick)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Stones, William


Dempsey, James
McCann, John
Swain, Thomas


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Taverne, D.


Duthie, Sir William
MacDermot, Niall
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edelman, Maurice
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Manuel, Archie
Ward, Dame Irene


Evans, Albert
Mapp, Charles
Watkins, Tudor


Fernyhough, E.
Marsh, Richard
Weitzman, David


Finch, Harold
Mayhew, Christopher
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fitch, Alan
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Foley, M.
Milne, Edward
Wigg, George


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Monslow, Walter
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Gourlay, Harry
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Greenwood, Anthony
O'Malley, B. K.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gunter, Ray
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Woof, Robert


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Prentice, R. E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hannan, William
Probert, Arthur



Harper, Joseph
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayman, F. H.
Randall, Harry
Mr. Lawson and


Healey, Denis
Redhead, E. C.
Mr. Charles A. Howell.




NOES


Aitken, Sir William
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Leavey, J. A.


Allason, James
Elliott, R. W. (Ne'c'tle -upon-Tyne, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Atkins, Humphrey
Errington, Sir Eric
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Barlow, Sir John
Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Barter, John
Fisher, Nigel
Litchfield, Capt. John


Batsford, Brian
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longden, Gilbert


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Loveys, Walter H.


Bidgood, John C.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Lubbock, Eric


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bingham, R. M.
Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Bishop, F. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Black, Sir Cyril
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Braine, Bernard
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maddan, Martin


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Maitland, Sir John


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Henderson, John (Carthcart)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Brooman-White, R.
Hendry, Forbes
Marten, Neil


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Buck, Antony
Hirst, Geoffrey
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bullard, Denis
Holland, Philip
Mawby, Ray


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hopkins, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Hornby, R. P.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Miscampbell, Norman


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Morgan, William


Coulson, Michael
Hughes-Young, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Neave, Airey


Crowder, F. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Currie, G. B. H.
James, David
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson Eric (Blackley)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Doughty, Charles
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


du Cann, Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Peel, John


Eden, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth







Pike, Miss Mervyn
Smithers, Peter
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Walder, David


Pitman, Sir James
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Walker, Peter


Pitt, Dame Edith
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wall, Patrick


Pott, Percivall
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Webster, David


Powett, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pym, Francis
Studholme, Sir Henry
Whitelaw, William


Ramsden, James
Summers, Sir Spencer
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Talbot, John E.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Wise, A. R.


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Roots, William
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Woodnutt, Mark


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Woollam, John


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Seymour, Leslie
Thorpe, Jeremy



Sharples, Richard
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shepherd, William
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Skeet, T. H. H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Mr. MacArthur.


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
van Straubenzee, W. R.

New Clause.—(REMOVAL TO A PLACE OF SAFETY.)

If any person applying to a court or a justice of the peace under section 40 or section 67(1) of the principal Act for authority to take a child or young person to a place of safety has reason to believe that the child or young person is subject to a probation or a supervision order or is in the care of a local authority as a fit person, he shall so inform the court or justice of the peace and so far as practicable give notice of his application to the juvenile court named in the order or the local authority as the case may be.—[Mr. MacColl]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, that the Clause be read a Second time.
This is one of a series of new Clauses and Amendments which were also moved in Committee—and, I hope, others on this subject will be debated later—dealing with the problem of the co-ordination of the activities of different bodies which are concerned with the care of children. Before explaining the matter further, I should explain the nature of the removal to a place of safety, for many people are not aware of how in many ways the law in dealing with children is very much tougher than that dealing with adults.
It may come as a shock to many people to realise that it is possible to obtain an order from a J.P. to remove a child to a place of safety—which is a home or similar institution—if it is thought that such a step would be in the interests of the child. It is possible to keep the child there without bringing it to court for 28 days. If an adult was arrested for a crime and was kept in prison without being brought to court for 28 days habeas corpus would tremble and there would be a frightful row. But it can be done to children who are not even delinquents. There is nothing to prevent them being held in custody, unable to get in touch with anyone and without having any contact with their parents.
It may be said that this is not the normal behaviour or what normally happens. That is true. Children's authorities looking after children normally behave in a humane and enlightened way. Nevertheless, the power is there to obtain an order to remove a child from its home or wherever it may be living and to take it into custody.
We are proposing in the new Clause that a person who goes to the justice asking for an order to remove should take some steps to find out whether anyone else is dealing with the child; if the child is on probation, under the supervision of a probation officer, or in the care of the local authority as a fit person—in other words, if there is a statutory authority responsible for looking after the child. The person who, in an emergency, wishes to apply for an order to remove should at least tell the justice making the order what the true situation is and, wherever possible, should give notice to the supervising office that the action is being taken.
10.45 p.m.
The case which was quoted in Standing Committee dealt with a young person who was under the supervision of a probation officer who happened to go away on leave. While he was away another outside body stepped in and removed the child to a place of safety, with the effect of wrecking her G.C.E. examination. When the probation officer came back it was discovered that that had been done. We want to avoid that kind of thing.
It seems to me that the best way of avoiding it is to put an obligation upon the person removing the child to get in touch with the supervising person, who technically is the court, and at least warn the justices who are making this drastic removal order, which should never become a matter of routine, of what the true situation is so that at least they take the responsibility of removing the child with full knowledge of the facts. This seems a reasonable protection to provide for the smooth operation of the service dealing with the child and also for the protection of the liberty of the child. This power of removing the child to a place of safety, although habitually done or purported to be done in the interest of the child, can be a serious interference with the child's liberty. Whatever social workers and welfare workers may think about it, for the child it is often arrest and removal to prison.

Sir Peter Roberts: In intervening, I possibly should declare a special interest, in that for many years I have watched over the care of children through the authority of the N.S.P.C.C.


I am a member of the executive of that body. The Minister will know that that Society has already given an undertaking that it wishes and is willing to consult both local authorities and the police in matters of this kind.
The Clause, as far as I can read it, merely puts into words the duty of consultation, as far as is practicable. One has no objection in principle to that, but I suggest that in view of the fact that the Society has made this undertaking to consult and the fact that the Home Secretary has powers to withdraw authorisation—in this case from the Society—if there is no consultation, I should have thought that the best way of dealing with the matter—

Miss Bacon: If the hon. Member will allow me to say so, he is a little confused. This has nothing to do with the authorisation of a body under the 1933 Act. It has to do with removal to a place of safety which anyone, including the N.S.P.C.C. can do.

Sir P. Roberts: I am merely putting forward the point of view of the N.S.P.C.C. In the ordinary course of events I do not know of many cases where an ordinary person could go to the magistrates and succeed. The feeling is that the main work done by authorities other than the local authorities or the police is done by the N.S.P.C.C. and the greatest number of the cases brought forward in this way are brought under the authority of that Society. In the matter of consultation I think that the present arrangements are satisfactory. I see no reason why we should amend the Bill in this way by accepting this proposed new Clause. As we are trying to build up consultation between the local authorities, the police and the Society, it would be far better to see how this system works before we put into legislative effect some Clause of this kind.
As I say, I do not see any great objection to this Clause in principle, but it would be better to leave the matter as it has functioned in the past, by having consultation on a normal basis of good will. It is better to do it that way than by having some form of statutory control.

Mr. Brooke: This Clause raises one aspect of the general problem of co-

ordination of the activities of the various statutory services and the voluntary social organisations in connection with children and their families. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) has put the point very well: is it desirable that all these matters should be regulated closely by statute, or can one in such cases as this, and against the background that he has described, rely on there being genuine co-ordination and co-operation without the need of statutory sanctions?
Speaking for the Government, I accept entirely that one service ought not to take action in a case that is already being dealt with by another service, without proper consultation with the service that is already handling the case. The question is whether principles of that kind can or should be translated into statutory provision, and I must say that I would advise the House not to accept the proposed new Clause and not to complicate the law further with statutory provisions which I submit are not really necessary.
It is the fact that, although, as the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said, all kinds of people might apply for authority to take a child to a place of safety, in practically every case if it is not the local authority it is the N.S.P.C.C.

Miss Bacon: Or the police.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady is entirely right; it is the local authority, the police or the N.S.P.C.C. We debated the position of the N.S.P.C.C—in another context, I grant—at some length in the Standing Committee, and I informed the Committee, as indeed I think they had already been informed from other quarters, that the N.S.P.C.C. thoroughly accepts the general principle of co-ordination with other social agencies, including the statutory agencies, of course.
The N.S.P.C.C has given an undertaking to consult the local authority before instituting care, protection and control proceedings and to do so before the stage is reached of applying for authority to remove a child or young person away from home. If that undertaking is honoured, as I believe it will be, there is every reason to hope that the sort of case against which this Clause is directed will not arise. The N.S.P.C.C.


will be aware of the words that I used in—

Mr. Charles Mapp: Will the Minister be good enough to tell the House the date of this undertaking? Within my own knowledge, some 11 or 12 weeks ago a child in my constituency was removal between quarter-past 2 and half-past 8 in the evening. Although the case had been in hand by an official agency of the local authority, not a word of consultation took place at all.

Mr. Brooke: If it was done at a special time, that might have been unavoidable. Perhaps the hon. Member will let me have particulars. He was, if I remember aright, a member of the Standing Committee. I said at that time that if I received information that the undertaking which I had reported was not being adhered to, I would like to know and would go into the matter. It would have been helpful if the hon. Member had not waited until now before reporting a case which, apparently, occurred eleven or twelve weeks ago. What I said in Committee is on record and I repeat it here.
It would be perfectly practicable to legislate on every conceivable aspect of co-operation and co-ordination between voluntary agencies and statutory bodies, but I do not think that it would be wise. That is not the way to secure the maximum help from the voluntary agencies, which, in the normal case, all the statutory agencies are only too glad to receive. It would be possible to do that, but I think that it would be unwise for Parliament to do it. For the reasons which I have given, I suggest that the House should not accept the new Clause.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: I do not think that the Home Secretary has been entirely frank with the House, nor was his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts). Both of them said that the N.S.P.C.C. was prepared to consult the local children's officer. Those of us on this side who have been in the trade union movement know what consultation means. It can mean simply that somebody tells one that something will be done. The Home Secretary has not been frank enough to tell the House at this stage that an undertaking was given, even before the Bill was printed, that the

Society should retain this right. Therefore, that undertaking having been given outside the House, even before the Bill was printed, it ill behoves the right hon. Gentleman now to say that he is not in a position to accept the new Clause.
The hon. Member for Heeley kept using the words "speaking on behalf of the N.S.P.C.C." He said that he could assure the House that the Society was prepared to consult. Why does he not go a stage further and say that the N.S.P.C.C. will not take this action unless it is approved by the children's officer or the designated officer?
Let me give an illustration of what could happen if the N.S.P.C.C. does this—I did not know anything about the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp)—and a family is advised to go to the children's officer and bring him to court. What a ridiculous position it would be if the N.S.P.C.C. were to go for an order and found that it was opposed by the local children's officer. That can happen, and it would have happened in the case, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) in moving the new Clause, in which the probation officer was on holiday. If he had not been on holiday, he would almost certainly have opposed it in the courts. That is the position into which the Society is getting itself.

Sir P. Roberts: Is the hon. Member aware that over the last two years, 80,000 cases of all kinds have been taken up by the N.S.P.C.C. and that in only one case has there been opposition by the local authority?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Member knows that that is not correct. Details were given of more than one case—

Sir P. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your protection against the hon. Member telling me that I said something which I know not to be correct?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think any point of order arises on that.

Mr. Howell: I repeat that details of more than one case were given in Committee. They are on record in the Committee.

Sir P. Roberts: Is the hon. Member aware that the N.S.P.C.C. asked for particulars of those cases but that they were not forthcoming?

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Howell: That is nothing to do with me. The cases were quoted. Obviously, we could not quote names and addresses, but the details were given. They were given to hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and I cannot imagine that they were not given to hon. Members opposite. I support the objectives of the N.S.P.C.C. as much as the hon. Member for Ealing, North does. It is an organisation which raises its money voluntarily, but let us be clear that the work is carried out by professionals. I do not want to denigrate any of the children's officers in the Society, but it may well be that many of them have not the qualifications and that local authorities may be much more discriminatory in selecting their children's officers, demanding a very high standard of qualification.
It is essential that there should be unanimity between the Society officer and the local authority officer before a case goes to court. What the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us was that, even if the agreement to which they referred is reached, there is an escape clause containing the words "except under exceptional circumstances.'' I cannot see any exceptional circumstances in which the local authority children's officer could not be contacted if the Society children's officer can be contacted. Even if it is Bank holiday, somebody must be available. Therefore, I do not think that the arguments are as genuine as they might have been, and I do not think they bear any relation to what is taking place. The Clause would help considerably.

Dame Irene Ward: I do not want to enter into the dispute over the Clause, but I was very interested when my right hon. Friend replied and no comment at all was made about the position of the courts or magistrates, for they are interested parties. I should declare an interest as a magistrate. Perhaps it would be better if occasionally a little more attention were paid to magistrates and their views on how the machinery dealing with matters of this kind operates.
I wonder whether, when considering the new Clause and the arguments in Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend or anybody else sought the advice of the Magistrates' Association or the advice of the clerks to the courts to ascertain whether it would be an advantage to the cours to have a Clause of this kind. That is very material. Justices are sometimes in a very difficult position because information which they would like to have is not forthcoming when a case is being heard.

Mr. MacColl: Perhaps I might assist the hon. Lady. She is under a misapprehension. The Clause was not discussed in Standing Committee. Therefore, the question does not really arise. The discussion in Committee dealt with a different point—taking proceedings for care and protection. This Clause deals with the removal of children to a place of safety before proceedings begin in court.

Dame Irene Ward: That may well be so, but much argument has taken place on both sides of the House about what was and was not said in Committee. The Clause refers to juvenile courts and magistrates, and all I ask is whether the magistrates were asked to express a view about whether the Clause would help them in the administration of justice and the part they have to play in looking after children who are in need of care and protection, and whether they were in favour of acceptance or rejection of the Clause. The courts are an integral part of the whole machinery of administration, and it is important that their interests should be considered and their views sought. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to answer this point.

Miss Bacon: I shall be brief, but I want to put one or two things right. In answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), I would point out that many of my hon. Friends who were on the Standing Committee are magistrates. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) is chairman of a juvenile court. I think that there has been some confusion in this discussion because, as my hon. Friend said, this Clause does not cover the same point as the Amendment we moved in Committee. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) was rather confused because he was speaking


entirely to that Amendment, which was about bringing children to court in need of care and protection. This Clause concerns what happens before the case comes to court.
In Committee I quoted cases given to me by very reliable people, and I promised that I would not divulge the names and addresses. But I remind the House of the case of a girl of 14 who was taken to a place of safety and thereby missed her chance of getting her G.C.E. That was a case from Leeds. The hon. Gentleman is confused in saying that there has been only one case of an objection over a period when the N.S.P.C.C. has taken children to court. That is not the point. This new Clause would deal with what happens before a child gets to court. The 14-year-old girl I have mentioned was sent back home when she appeared before the court. It was in the month that she was kept in a place of safety that the harm was done.
This is a very modest Clause. It merely asks that when a child is taken to a place of safety the person taking it shall ascertain whether or not it is already in the care of some suitable agency and shall see that that agency and the court are informed. That is all we ask and it is a modest request.
The Home Secretary says that the N.S.P.C.C. has promised to consult, but that was to do with taking the child before the court, and at a later stage tonight further Amendments will be moved to cover that aspect. I am surprised that he does not accept this very modest request, which is the least we

could ask for. I hope, in view of his refusal, that we shall carry this to a division.

Mr. Brooke: By leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). As the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said, this Clause covers a new point not raised in Committee. To the best of my knowledge, I have received no advice or opinion from the Magistrates' Association about it. I entirely agree that the position of the courts and of the magistrates is extremely important.
Warrants to remove children to a place of safety are granted by magistrates, who are surely to be trusted to make appropriate inquiries before doing so. They have this protection in their own hands. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I have not received any specific advice or opinion from the Magistrates' Association upon it.

Dame Irene Ward: I did not ask whether the Association tendered any advice but whether my right hon. Friend had asked it whether it had any advice to give. It is extremely difficult for the Association to know what new Clauses and Amendments are to be put down on Report stage, particularly if a new point is to be covered. Did my right hon. Friend get in touch with the Association on this matter?

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 150.

Division No. 164.]
AYES
[11.9 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dempsey, James
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Beaney, Alan
Dodds, Norman
Kelley, Richard


Blyton, William
Duffy, A. E. P.
Kenyon, Clifford


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Evans, Albert
Lawson, George


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Fernyhough, E.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Bowles, Frank
Finch, Harold
Loughlin, Charles


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fitch, Alan
McCann, John


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacColl, James


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gourlay, Harry
MacDermot, Niall


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, Anthony
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hannan, William
Manuel, Archie


Carmichael, Neil
Harper, Joseph
Mapp, Charles


Cliffe, Michael
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mayhew, Christopher


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hill (Midlothian)
Millan, Bruce


Cronin, John
Holman, Percy
Milne, Edward


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Houghton, Douglas
Mitchison, G. R.


Dalyell, Tam
Hoy, James H.
O'Malley, B. K.


Davies G. Elfed Rhondda, E.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas




Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sorensen, R. W.
Whitlock, William


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilkins, W. A.


Purser, Cmdr. Harry
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Randall, Harry
Stonehouse, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Redhead, E. C.
Swain, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wills, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Woof, Robert


Ross, William
Wainwright, Edwin
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Silkin, John
Ward, Dame Irene



Skeffington, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Weitzman, David
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Small, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. Sydney Irving.




NOES


Aitken, Sir William
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitt, Dame Edith


Allason, James
Holland, Philip
Pott, Percivall


Atkins, Humphrey
Hopkins, Alan
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Barlow, Sir John
Hornby, R. P.
Pym, Francis


Barter, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Ramsden, James


Batsford, Brian
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Bidgood, John C.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Biggs-Davison, John
James, David
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bingham, R. M.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roots, William


Bishop, F. P.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Black, Sir Cyril
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Kirk, Peter
Seymour, Leslie


Bourne-Arton, A.
Kitson Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Leavey, J. A.
Shepherd, William


Braine, Bernard
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Skeet, T. H. H.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Brooman-White, R.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Peter


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Buck, Antony
Longden, Gilbert
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Bullard, Denys
Loveys, Walter H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Storey, Sir Samuel


Chichester-Clark, R.
MacArthur, Ian
Studholme, Sir Henry


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
McLaren, Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Talbot, John E.


Coulson, Michael
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tapsell, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Maclead, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Curran, Charles
McMaster, Stanley R.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Macmillan, Maurice (Hadifax)
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Doughty, Charles
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Drayson, G. B.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


du Cann, Edward
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Eden, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Emery, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Errington, Sir Eric
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Fisher, Nigel
Morgan, William
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Foster, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walder, David


Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Gower, Raymond
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Webster, David


Green, Alan
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wise, A. R.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woodhouse, C, M.


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Woodnutt, Mark


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Peel, John
Woollam, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Worsley, Marcus


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pike, Miss Mervyn



Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pilkington, Sir Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pitman, Sir James
Mr. Finlay and Mr. Ian Fraser.

New Clause.—(RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF CONTRIBUTIONS.)

(1) Where during any period (in this section referred to as "the period of default")—

(a) a person was liable to make contributions in respect of a child; but
(b) no order was in force requiring him to make the contributions,

a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area where he is for the time being residing may, on the application of the person who

would have been entitled to receive payment under such an order, make an order (in this section referred to as an "arrears order") requiring him to pay such weekly sum, for such period, as the court, having regard to his means, thinks fit; but the aggregate of the payments required to be made by any person under an arrears order shall not exceed the aggregate that, in the opinion of the court, would have been payable by him under a contribution order in respect of the period of default or, if it exceeded three months, the last part


thereof, less the aggregate of the payments (if any) made by him in respect of his liability during that period or, as the case may be, the last part thereof.

For the purposes of this subsection the last part of the period of default shall be taken to be the last three months thereof and such time, if any, preceding the last three months as is equal to the time during which it continued after the making of the application for the arrears order.

(2) No application for an arrears order shall be made later than three months after the end of the period of default.

(3) An arrears order shall be treated as a contribution order, and payments under it as contributions, for the purposes of the following enactments, that is to say—

in the principal Act, subsections (3) and (4) of section 86, section 87(4), 85 and 102(1)(c),
the Maintenance Orders Act 1950,
the Maintenance Orders Act 1958,
paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Local Government Act 1958.

(4) Where the person who was liable to make contributions resides in Scotland or Northern Ireland, subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the magistrates' court therein mentioned there were substituted a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area where the applicant is for the time being residing or, where the applicant is a local authority, a magistrates' court acting for the area or part of the area of the local authority.

(5) A person liable to make payments under an arrears order shall, except at a time when he is under a duty to give information of his address under section 14(1) of this Act, keep the person to whom the payments are to be made informed of his address; and if he fails to do so he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

(6) In this section—
child" has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1948,
contributions" means contributions under section 86 of the principal Act, and
contribution order" means an order under section 87 of the principal Act.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am glad to see that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) has added her name to the new Clause. As the side note indicates, its purpose is to secure arrears of contributions from persons liable to make them in respect of their children in care.
I put down this Clause as a result of representations made to me by the London County Council—and because of some memories of experiences of the

children's committees of that council from time to time. Since the Clause appeared on the Order Paper I have received communications from a considerable number of town clerks and clerks to authorities, hoping that the Clause will be accepted, and in addition I have had a strong letter of support from the Association of Municipal Corporations on behalf of its members.
Briefly, I want to explain the purpose of the Clause. Under Section86(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, read in conjunction with Sections 23 and 24 of the Children Act, 1948, the father and mother of a person committed to the care either of a fit person or to an approved school, or into the care of a local authority are liable to make contributions in respect of that child. Under Section 87 of the 1933 Act a juvenile magistrates' court at the time of the child's commital or any magistrates' court in the area where the parents reside may subsequently make a contribution order for weekly payments in accordance with the parents' means, to help to support the child.
These contribution orders under Section 87 of the 1933 Act are enforceable as affiliation orders, and it would be fair to conclude from that—although I do not think that this point has ever been decided—that they are effective only from the date on which they are made. However long the period in which a child is in care before the order is made, for all that period of time it is not possible to obtain contributions if the parent does not choose to make them.
Many authorities—including London County Council—work on the assumption that they will get co-operation from the parents and try to obtain a voluntary agreement. The parent is seen; the means are ascertained by the officer investigating the case and these means are then generally checked with the employer. I regret to say that some parents underestimate their income, and it takes between two and three weeks to see the parents and get the details, and get them checked in full and to make out a scheme of payments in accordance with the means of the parents and the authority's scale of payment.
The authorities are still assuming at that stage that the parent will honour


the agreement; it would be wrong immediately to apply to the court for a contribution order, so two or three weeks must elapse before it can be certain that the parent will not contribute voluntarily. Then an order has to be obtained from the court, and in the present state of the London Petty Sessions that means another three or four weeks must elapse before the contribution order can be made. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that three months can pass before an order is obtained from the magistrates for the sum which the magistrates think a suitable one according to the demands made by the local authority on a parent's income.
I am not making a general charge, but there are unfortunately a number of parents who know their way about this kind of procedure. They need not and do not notify a change of address, and so more months may pass before it is possible to get an order. Theoretically, there are two ways in which a local authority is supposed to be able to cover this kind of contingency. Theoretically, it can apply to a court—if a juvenile court commits a child to care—for an order, but there are three snags. In the first place the father generally has to make the payment, and he is not in court. It may be some time before he is induced to come to court—if the authority knows where he is. In the second place, it is not possible to find out what the parent's income is in time for the court hearing. The third objection to this theoretical possibility is the fact that many magistrates, certainly in the London area, hold the view—and I think it is right—that the rather emotional atmosphere in which a child is committed to care is not the right place to go into details of what parental contribution there should be. Of course, a much greater reason for rejecting this possibility is the fact that the overwhelming proportion of children who come into care do not do so through the courts, and consequently one cannot apply for an order at that stage.
There is another possibility which is sometimes suggested, and that is that a legal arrangement can be made with the parent by a stamped deed which, if the parent does not contribute, can be enforced in the county court, but I think everybody who has had any experience of these matters will see how highly theoretical that is, because in the first

place a non-co-operative parent will not sign the deed or reveal his income, and in the second place, much as I uphold the splendid work the county courts do, they are in many cases a little slow moving, and it would take some months before one could effect any payment under an order of this kind.
The amount which was lost by the London County Council in 1961—I think it was; certainly in one year in the last three years—was £20,000, which was not paid by parents whose children were in care, parents who were in the economic position of being quite able to make a payment. This does not seem quite fair on the rest of the citizens. I do not know what the sum thus lost would be for the whole country, but taking as a basis that about one-eighth of the children in care are under the London County Council the sum which could have been made available for the community at large must be well over £100,000. The Clause is designed to close this gap. Of course if there is no income in a problem family or only a very low income the local authority would not dream of asking for a contribution, and if it did, it is the magistrates who decide, within the scale set forward, what the contribution should be.
A working party of officers of various local councils and of local authority associations recommended this change nearly ten years age, in 1954, and in paragraph 379 of its Report the Ingleby Committee also made a recommendation to the same effect.
The new Clause would work in this way, if it were accepted, as I hope. There would be a new type of order termed an arrears order which would provide for the payment by weekly sums of the amount which would be due if a contribution order had been in force at the time when the parent became liable to contribute. The effect would be that where a child ceased to be in care the extent of the retrospective arrangement would be limited to the last three months of the child's period in care. The decision whether or not to apply for such an order would have to be taken by the local authority within three months of the child's discharge. So that there is a great limitation on the power given in the new Clause. The Ingleby Committee in paragraph 379 of its Report actually


suggested six months in both cases. So the new Clause is fairly modest in the suggestion it makes.
The Clause has had most distinguished and eminent draftsmen, and the House will therefore realise that it is not my own. The complicated wording in the last sentence of subsection (1,b) is to allow arrears orders to be made in respect of the period commencing three months before the date of the issue of the summons, where a child remains in care. The reason for this provision follows from what I was saying earlier, that though a parent may be under an obligation to give his address, it is often difficult to serve a summons. They have to be served personally, and months may go by before the summons is effectively served. If, however, the parent knew that however long the delay his obligation would still remain, that would save a great waste of time by officials who could be better employed looking after other of their activities for children. It is hoped that this provision would discourage delaying tactics.
There is a provision for the address in subsection (5) where the duty does not already exist under the Act. The Clause will not allow arrears orders to be made against a child over 16 in respect of his own contributions. These cases arise from time to time.
I remind hon. Members that there has been widespread support for the Clause. It would not be exercised where the parent had no means or very little. Local authorities do not commonly take action where parents have no means. In any event, the magistrates have the last word on a contribution order which was so made for weekly payments. I hope that the House will accept the new Clause. I feel that it is a modest contribution to the Bill and closes a gap which we should not tolerate where payment can reasonably be made.

11.30 p.m.

Miss Vickers: I support the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) in the new clause; he was modest about it, but it is quite an important Clause because it will aid parents and encourage them to contribute voluntarily, which is what we want. I believe that more than half the parents

who should contribute in fact do not do so. Parents do not contribute unless they are forced to do so by court order. Other difficulties also arise. For instance, if the mother is ill or having another child, there may be difficulty about the payments and these often are not made. Considerable debts accumulate to the local authority.
I agree with the hon. Member that the Clause would not be enforced where there were financial difficulties. But my right hon. Friend knows that there are certain parents who do not intend to pay; they are apt to part with their children with no intention of paying.
On page 111 of the Ingleby Report the Committee sets out in detail its views on this matter and supports all that has been said by the hon. Member. A similar provision was moved as an Amendment in another place and the Government spokesman there seemed fairly sympathetic.
I lay special emphasis on the last point made by the hon. Member—that the Clause will not allow arrears orders to be made against a child over 16 in respect of his own contributions. This is important because these are often exceptional circumstances in which people would find it difficult to pay Action must be taken within three months, otherwise the child ceases to be in care—and that is another safeguard for the individual. I hope that my right hon. Friend will sympathetically consider the Amendment in view of what was said in another place and of the way in which the hon. Member has proposed it.

Sir B. Janner: The Association of Municipal Corporations is in favour of the acceptance of the Clause. The present position is that, where children or young persons are received into the care of children authorities under Section 1 of the Children Act, 1948—the section which covers the position where children come into the care of the council under the terms of that section and sot by virtue of a court order—or are committed to the care of an authority by an order of the court under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1944, or committed to approved schools, application may be made by the children authority to the magistrates for a contribution order requiring the payment to be made by the


parent of such weekly sum towards the cost of the children who are taken into care, as is reasonable having regard to his means.
I understand that the cost of maintaining children in care is often great. In the financial year 1962–63 the average cost for each child in Leicester council homes was about £10 a week. This figure is not exceptional when compared with the cost to other authorities. In the view of the Leicester council it is incumbent to recover from the parent such amount as is reasonable, having regard to his means, for the whole period the child is in care. At present the council is in a difficulty because this cannot be achieved. When a child or young person comes in the care of the council, by whatever Statute, there is a delay, says the Leicester council, of between three and four weeks from the time he is so received into care till the time the magistrates are able to hear the application for the contribution order.
Although parents often make voluntary payments to the city council in respect of the maintenance of their children for the intervening period, there are persons who, not facing up to their responsibility as parents, fail or refuse to pay anything for this period. As the law stands at present, there is nothing to compel the parent to pay in respect of his child's maintenance for the period. The consequence is that the council loses the arrears. On the other hand, there is a compulsion upon the council to maintain the child.
The Leicester council's children's officer estimates that in the period 1960 to date the council has lost £400. That is nothing compared with what the London County Council has lost, but a much smaller area is involved. This sum would be literally turned into thousands of £s if no voluntary payments were made.
It is said by opponents of the Clause that it is wrong in principle to enact a Measure requiring retrospective payments to be made, but there is such a Section in the Affiliation Proceedings Act, 1957, which enables the court when a complaint for an affiliation order is laid within two months after the birth of the child to order not only a future weekly payment but retrospective pay-

ments from the date of the order to the date of the child's birth.
In support of my hon. Friend I have given these facts and figures concerning Leicester. Many of my hon. Friends could give similar facts from their counties. There is no reason why a person who is able to pay should not be called upon to pay. I have given a precedent for requiring retrospective payments to be made. I hope that the Minister will accept the Motion.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): Hon. Members will have listened with interest to the good case put forward in favour of the new Clause. I do not think that hon. Members will desire me, at this late hour, to go over the arguments again. The new Clause brings in a principle arising out of the Ingleby Committees' recommendations and it is welcomed by the local authorities. For these reasons I advise the House to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Hannan: Before we proceed to pass the new Clause, I must confess that I am not clear about what the position will be from Scotland's point of view, for it is stated in subsection (4):
Where the person who was liable to make contributions resides in Scotland or Northern Ireland, subsection (1) of this section shall have effect …
This presumably means that someone who is due to pay a sum of money to maintain his or her child in England but that person resides in Scotland will, under the Clause, still be responsible for such payments. If the Clause does apply to Scotland should not there be a provision whereby anyone who is responsible for payments in Scotland but is residing south of the Border will, nevertheless, make those contributions?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member, but the new Clause does not apply to Scotland. When it was being mooted we consulted the Scottish local authority associations. I do not want to dampen the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), but I must tell him that the Scottish local authorities were not at all enthusiastic for the Clause—for practical reasons. The English authorities were enthusiastic for it.
Following the Scottish, response we felt that, since a number of matters concerned with the Bill were due for further consideration after the Kilbrandon Report, we would see how it worked out in England first and then follow it in Scotland at a later stage if that was thought desirable.

Mr. MacColl: The main point in the new Clause which worried me when I first saw it was the question of arrears. I feared that it might create considerable difficulties if the court, faced with a request to make an order—not only for paying off the current amount but finding someone whose finances were already rocky—declared that in addition to the present amount a person was liable to pay off a substantial amount of past arrears. Such a situation, I thought, might create a considerable debt and might upset the whole arrangement. However, it is to be at the discretion of the court to decide the order it will make. Presumably it will be expected to take account of the circumstances.
As to the period mentioned in the new Clause, I would not like to see it longer than six months. Even that would be excessive. In view of the advantage which arises from the encouragement it gives to make agreements without going to court—not only a more civilised arrangement but helpful considering the long lists facing courts today—I am glad that the hon. Lady has accepted the new Clause.

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) need have no fears about what the courts will feel about the new Clause. Magistrates' courts will be delighted that it has been accepted. I hope that the local authorities will accept their responsibilities and ensure that if the parents are in default, they will go to the magistrates' courts at the earliest possible moment and so save the public purse a great deal of expense.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne has had considerable difficulty in the past. That local authority might have taken action earlier. However, I now hope that local authorities generally will take advantage of the provisions of the new Clause. I also hope that the Scottish Office will consider the matter and will insist on a similar new Clause being introduced into the Scottish legislation.
11.45 p.m.
I have always understood that the whole idea of the Government was to try to save the public purse. It is pretty horrifying that we have had to wait until this stage of the Bill for a new Clause to be moved by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers). I should have thought that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would have protected the public purse without waiting for the new Clause to be moved from the back benches. The same applies to Scotland and I hope that the Government will take note that the ratepayers would like action on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland as well.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I cannot let that statement go without saying, as a member of a local authority and a children's committee, that I can assure the hon. Lady that local authorities are most anxious to reclaim as much money as possible in this direction and that they do everything they can to obtain it. My own local authority employs a special officer to do this work and it goes to great length to recover as much money as possible. It is most unfair of the hon. Lady to assert that local authorities are not fully aware of their responsibilities to save ratepayers' money.

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Lady may have the best local authority in the world, but I am a magistrate and I feel deeply on this matter. I have observed on the bench how the Newcastle authority has allowed arrears to develop over a period. The hon. Lady is entitled to speak for her local authority. I am entitled to speak for the bench on which I serve.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second lime, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF POWER TO PROMOTE WELFARE OF CHILDREN.)

Miss Pike: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, after second "time", to insert:
and at least once in every twelve months".
The Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given in Standing Committee and will ensure that we have reports at least annually on arrangements being


made by local authorities to carry out their responsibilities under the Clause.

Miss Bacon: I thank the hon. Lady and the Home Secretary for the Amendment. As the hon. Lady has said, it is a response to our request in Committee. I feel all the more grateful because I think that the Amendment in Committee was the only one with my name on it which was accepted in principle during the whole of the Committee's proceedings, and it was accepted by the hon. Lady in the absence of her right hon. Friend.
We think it very important that we should have these reports annually. At first this we resisted. I remember that two or three years ago during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Act we asked for an annual statistical report on approved schools and remand homes. That we strongly resisted at first but we have just had the first annual report and it has proved tremendously valuable. I am certain that these annual reports from the local authorities to the Home Office will prove equally valuable.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS IN NEED OF CARE, PROTEC- TION OR CONTROL.)

Miss Vickers: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end to insert:
(f) if it is proved to the satisfaction of a juvenile court beyond reasonable doubt that the child, being under the age of ten years, acts in a manner which would render a person over that age liable to be found guilty of an offence.
Although I spoke on the Second Reading, unfortunately I was not on the Standing Committee and, therefore, I could not move this Amendment. My reason for moving it is that it is a recommendation of the Ingleby Committee, in paragraph 86. In addition, children who are under the age of criminal responsibility and can be sent away from home because of committing what are deemed to be crimes, in my opinion, should not be deprived of the protection which the law gives to those who are considered to be criminals.
On Second Reading the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) quoted a letter from the County Councils Association. I do not intend to quote

the whole of that letter, but I should like to refer to part of it:
The Association did not suggest that children of, say, thirteen, fourteen and fifteen did not know light from wrong; their view was that children of those ages and younger should not be treated as criminals if they did wrong. That was why they suggested they should be dealt with outside the criminal code. Training and education rather than punishment was needed.
That is the reason for my Amendment. If my Amendment were accepted, the age of criminal responsibility could easily be raised to 15 years because there would be adequate means of protecting the younger ones.
As I understand it, a juvenile court has two functions. One is to try cases of children over the age of criminal responsibility accused of criminal offences, and the other is to inquire into cases of children of any age said to be in need of care and protection. The second function which the court exercises is not a criminal but a civil jurisdiction. The child is not on trial and no finding of guilt is made.
At present if children under 10 cannot be dealt with as offenders, they can become convenient tools for gangs of older children. They cannot be cleared if untrue allegations are made against them by shopkeepers or neighbours. I believe there are about 4,700 children between the ages of 8 and 9 who are found guilty of some offence in an average year, but if these children cannot be brought before the court they will be denied the help that can now be given to them. Such children may be left to drift until they are at least 10 years old. It is true to say that the Home Secretary recognised this fact, as is apparent from his remarks on Second Reading as reported in column 1375 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I consider that unfairness might result if two children were involved in a small offence and one were under the age of 10 and the other over that age. I am worried about what is to happen to these younger children. If it is thought necessary that such children should have some kind of protection, why cannot they be treated as older children would be if they were found guilty of an offence? This would not go against them in the future, and they would get adequate protection to save them perhaps from becoming delinquent in later


years. I would prefer to see the age of criminal responsibility raised beyond the age of 10. It could only be done if this recommendation of the Ingleby Committee, which was put forward after great thought, had been accepted.
In recommending that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 12, the Ingleby Committee recommended in paragraph 86 that a juvenile court should be empowered to treat as in need of care and protection a child under the age of 12 who
acts in a manner which would render a person over that age liable to be found guilty of an offence".
The Committee gave a further illustration in Appendix IV, at page 170, and set out in detail how the proceedings would operate in the case of a boy aged 10.
If a child under the age of 12 so behaved, either the police or the local authority could bring him before the juvenile court as in need of care and protection; and if the court found the complaint proved, it could exercise precisely the same powers, including the power of punishment, as if the child had been over the age of 12 and been found guilty of the relevant criminal offence.
Now, I understand, a child can be taken into care and protection and not have the same right of appeal as a child who has been accused before a criminal court. It seems to me clear, therefore, that the Ingleby Committee would not have recommended an increase in the age of criminal responsibility unaccompanied by a procedure which would enable a child between the ages of 8 and 12 to come before the courts if in need of care and protection.
In other words, it appears that a child who is below the age of criminal responsibility will not get the same protection as a child who is brought before the courts and charged with a criminal offence who is of the age of criminal responsibility.
I understand, having read the debate in another place, that it was proposed to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12, and I would like to have supported that. It was argued, I understand, that this country compared unfavourably with other countries, although, perhaps, it was not fully realised that in other countries

a child over the age of criminal responsibility is considered as adult as children were in the early days in this country, when a child could be deported or imprisoned. This still happens in other countries in Europe in regard to a child over the age of criminal responsibility. In this respect, therefore, we compare quite favourably with other countries. It was mentioned in another place that in some countries, a child under the age of criminal responsibility can, nevertheless, be declared a juvenile delinquent on the ipse dixit of a police officer and dealt with by the appropriate authority. Those countries have, therefore, machinery by which they can deal with these younger children.
My reason for anxiety about the situation is that if the earlier fault cannot be recognised and tackled, there is less chance of success when a child gets older. I am fortified in this idea by a leading article in The Times of 2nd May, which urged that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised and that machinery should be established to enable delinquent children under the age of 12 to be suitably dealt with.
This is what I am worried about. Whatever the age of criminal responsibility, how is a child under the age of criminal responsibility to be suitably treated? I am also fortified, though perhaps not for exactly the same reasoning, by a letter which appeared in The Times on behalf of the National Association of Probation Officers, who are equally worried about what will happen concerning those in the younger age group. I want to be quite certain that the younger children are not used as tools and I want them to be helped at as early an age as possible.
12 midnight
If my Amendment is accepted, a child will not be sent for trial—I want to make that clear—and no finding of guilt can be held against it. All I ask is that it should receive similar protection to the child committed for a criminal offence, that no action shall be taken against it; in other words, that it may be taken into care without having any right of appeal, as appears to be the position at present. My right hon. Friend may say that in civil proceedings there are not the same standards of proof. I accept that. The balance of probabilities is different. There


is the matter of proof beyond all possible doubt, and justice might not be done if the commission of an offence were to be the evidence of need of care and protection.
However, I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the Amendment, because if some help is not given to the younger ones and they are just left to drift until over the age of 10–5,000 of them come before the courts at the present time already—it may be very difficult to help them in later years. This is a very important Amendment, and I hope that even at this very late hour, not only in time but also in the proceedings on the Bill, my right hon. Friend will seriously consider accepting it. Not only will it enable us to give protection to younger people, but through the Amendment we may be able to raise the age of criminal responsibility very much higher. I should like to see it raised to 15, with protection given to those under the age. Also, those who deal with this type of case should have the opportunity to help the young people in the early stages so that they may not develop criminal tendencies at a later age.

Miss Bacon: I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) has moved the Amendment. It nearly breaks my heart to say that I hope that the Home Secretary will not accept it but will resist it. Nearly everything that the hon. Lady has haid in her speech was an argument in favour of the case committee which we proposed earlier and which has been turned down by the House. The hon. Lady is worried about what will happen to the children under the age of criminal responsibility. So were we. That was why we suggested a case committee, much less formal than a juvenile court, and where there could probably be some voluntary arrangements between the parents and the committee.
I understand that our main Amendment on raising the age of criminal responsibility will probably not be called. That being so, it seems that this is the only opportunity we have of discussing this very important matter. Without going into the question of the age at all, I believe that this Amendment takes us a step further back. What do we mean, by "the age of criminal respon-

sibility"? We do not mean the age at which children cannot be brought before a court, because children can be brought before courts as in need of care and protection. We mean the age below which children cannot be charged with having committed a crime.
If the hon. Lady had her way—this was proposed by Ingleby, but I am opposed to Ingleby on this—what would the position be? Supposing two boys aged nine and ten took away a bicycle which did not belong to them. The boy of ten would be taken before the court and charged with having committed a crime. The boy aged nine could be taken before the same court, not charged with having committed a crime but as being in need of care, protection or control. In the end, the court could do exactly the same with both children. The one under the age of criminal responsibility could find himself at an approved school with the boy of ten.
That seems to me to make nonsense of the whole thing. I am sure that the children would not see any difference, and I am sure that the people in the country would not either. I agree that it is of some importance that the boy of nine would not be charged with having committed a crime, but what I am concerned about is seeing that very young children are kept out of the courts altogether and to produce some other method of dealing with them.
Another reason that this would be a step backward is that at present, with the age of criminal responsibility at eight, if a child under eight commits one act which, in any older person, would be deemed to be a crime, he is not brought before a court as in need of care, protection and control unless his general behaviour over a period is such as to make it necessary.
The Amendment, however, does not specify the ages of eight to ten. The hon. Lady merely specifies "under ten", which means that if a child even of four or five—for she sets no lower limit—committed one act which, in an older person, would be deemed to be a crime could be brought before the court as being in need of care, protection and control. This would be a most retrograde step.
I am sorry that our Clause with respect to case committees was not


accepted, because that would have been a much better way of dealing with this. Had we raised the age of criminal responsibility to 12, 13 or 14, we would, I agree, have been in a rather difficult position, having rejected case committees, but as we have only increased the age to ten I do not think this will create such great difficulty as some people think. If it does create difficulty, however, I hope that we shall find some alternative, some less rigid form, than the juvenile court and will have some kind of case committee.
I am sorry I cannot go with the hon. Lady on this because she and I on these matters usually think alike, and occasionally we have supported each other. But in this we would be taking a step backwards.

Mr. Brooke: I am in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to choose between the two hon. Ladies. I greatly respect the ingenuity of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) who has very sincerely and conscientiously sought to find a remedy for what the Government believe to be the defects in the Ingleby procedure.
The Amendment seeks to combine a nominal rise in the age of criminal responsibility with the introduction of a procedure by which children under the new age—and children a long way under that age, as the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said—could be dealt with by the court for their delinquent acts. I must say, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, that we are trying to find some way of avoiding bringing young children into court for their delinquent acts. Whatever the other merits of the Amendment, it would be inconsistent with what we have sought to make the whole purpose of the increase in the age of criminal responsibility, which is to save children under the age of ten from being brought before the court on account of behaviour offending against the criminal law.
My hon. Friend explained that these would be civil proceedings and that there would be no question of a criminal offence. I quite appreciate that, but I am not at all sure that a child of eight or nine would appreciate it, and I doubt whether many parents would. These

things may be quite clear to us when we are arguing in the House of Commons, even after midnight, but, without disrespect, I am not sure that they would be equally clear in the workaday atmosphere of the juvenile court.
I agree that my hon. Friend has improved on the Ingleby recommendations in one respect, because she says that an act equivalent to an offence—if I may put it that way—would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not, as is the general rule in care, protection or control proceedings, only on a balance of probabilities. That element in her Amendment would restore one safeguard of criminal procedure which the Ingleby Committee appeared to have discarded. Even so, I do not think that there is any way of getting away from the fact that the proceedings in a case falling within the scope of the Amendment would be simply a substitute for the criminal proceedings which would be instituted in the same case under the present law.
One wants to pay the greatest attention to the probable effect of an Amendment. Perhaps therefore I should also say that as drafted the Amendment would leave it uncertain whether the court needed to be satisfied that there was any element of mens rea in the child's behaviour. Is it enough for the court to be satisfied that the child took away a bicycle, or has it also to be satisfied that the child took away the bicycle without any intention of returning it? These are matters which may seem somewhat technical, but if we were to embody an Amendment like this into the law, we would leave the court in doubt as to whether the element of mens rea had to be present.
I entirely appreciate that my hon. Friend is seeking to provide a method or practice for dealing with a child of eight or nine who has done something which in an older child could be dealt with under the criminal law. She is perfectly entitled to ask what is to happen to these children. Have we been rash in raising the age of criminal responsibility from eight to ten without thinking out sufficiently how we will deal with these children?
It is common ground between us that none of us wants any child brought into court unless it is absolutely necessary. One would certainly hope that when a


child of eight or nine is in circumstances where it might now be brought into court charged with some offence, a report will be made to the child's parents or, if it has happened in some connection with the school, to the head teacher of the school. After all, both parents and schoolteachers are perhaps the best persons of all to deal with children of 8 or 9, whatever else may lie in the background.
12.15 a.m.
One may ask, is that any use? One may say that it has not proved sufficiently valuable in the past, but I hope that Clause 1 may have some considerable importance in cases like these. We all recognise that a number of small children start committing offences because their parents really have not known how to cope with them—

Mr. Mapp: The right hon. Gentleman posed to the House the very thing that he is avoiding. When the Bill appeared in another place there was no change in the age of criminal responsibility. Because of pressure brought to bear on them, the Government then made a change. Having made the change, they did not address themselves to the problem of the children of 8 to 10, or 8 to 12, or whatever it may be in future. In Committee upstairs, and now here, we have put forward certain proposals. The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) has done her homework, and I pay tribute to her for trying to find a solution to the problem. The right hon. Gentleman puts the position to the House, but he does not fill the vacuum as to what the Home Office has been thinking, and in fact the vacuum is still there.

Mr. Brooke: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue my speech, because I am about to deal with this very point on which he says that I have not expressed a view. I am about to express my view on it and to point out that Clause 1 is very pertinent here.
In many of these cases where young children have been getting into trouble, the real cause is that the parents have not known how to cope with them. The object of Clause 1 is to put a duty on to local authorities, as well as power in their hands, to give guidance and advice to parents who are in that position, and it will not now be necessary, as it has

been hitherto, for the local authority to stand back until a crisis has arisen. The local authority in the course of its ordinary work will be offering advice, guidance, and assistance to help parents and the child in a case of that kind.
It may be found, in the course of action under Clause 1, that the child needs some specialised treatment of some kind—that the child really ought to be in a school for maladjusted children, or ought to go to a child guidance clinic, or something like that—or that the parents will refuse to co-operate at all. It may be that, despite the advice, guidance, or assistance that may be given to them, they will remain indifferent or unwilling to give their child any help.
It will then be important to see what can be done under Clause 2 as it stands without this Amendment. The Amendment will be ineffective for bringing a child into court unless subsection (1,a) of Clause 2 is satisfied, that is, that the child
is not receiving such care, protection and guidance as a good parent may reasonably be expected to give".
If the child is getting into trouble, and if it is not receiving that care, protection and guidance from its parents, it may well be that it will fall under subsection (2,a), which deals with the case where the child is falling into bad associations; indeed, this is constantly given as the reason why a child has been led astray. Or it may fall under subsection (2,b), which refers to the situation where
the lack of care, protection or guidance is likely … seriously to affect his health or proper development …
There are all these various possibilities. It is not the case that if the age of criminal responsibility is raised to 10 there are no circumstances in which a child falling into bad associations can be brought to the court as being in need of care, protection or control.
I assure my hon. Friend that there is a variety of possibilities for dealing with the 4,000 cases that hitherto have been coming into court when a child has been charged with some offence. We are breaking new ground here. We are pioneering, and may make mistakes. We have to learn as we go along, and I am sure that we shall learn most from those local authorities that use their powers


most vigorously and send us in helpful reports. My concern will be to do all in my power to ensure that all local authorities know of the experience of those local authorities which are best setting about their duties under Clause 1.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are not ignoring the problem which her Amendment is designed to solve. There is a genuine problem here, but I say in all sincerity that I believe it would be better solved by leaving the Bill as it stands, and by vigorous use of the powers of the local authorities under Clause 1, than by introducing her Amendment into Clause 2, which would have the unfortunate repercussions that I have tried to indicate. I hope that my hon. Friend may feel inclined to ask leave to withdraw her Amendment.

Miss Vickers: I do not know what the position is, since I was not a Member of the Committee, but is it the fact that children who are under the age of criminal responsibility can be sent away from home because they have committed what are deemed to be crimes, and will not receive the normal protection of appeal which is given to other persons above the age of criminal responsibility?

Mr. Brooke: Many children brought before the courts have not committed an offence but are deemed to be in need of care, protection or control. The children to whom the Amendment is directed will simply be one section of a larger body of children who are not deemed to have committed an offence, but who may come into court on the ground that they are thought to be in need of care, protection or control. The provisions of Clause 2 will have to be satisfied before the court can make an order, and these children will have just the same protection as other children who come into court now in similar circumstances.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Mapp: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end to insert:
Any general or special order made by the Secretary of State under section 62(4) of the principal Act shall provide that any proceedings by an "authorised" person must be with the consent of the appropriate local authority.
The Amendment refers to the question of authorised persons. The Committee was engaged upstairs on this general subject for about four hours, and columns

145–224 of the report of the Committee's proceedings indicate pretty conclusively that the subject was important and was exhaustively dealt with. The debate is now on the simple and narrow but important issue whether, in future, juvenile court proceedings in respect of a child in need of care, protection or control should or could be delegated to an authorised person as well as to the local authorities and the police. The Amendment does not seek to rob the Royal Society of the right, but makes it conditional that the agreement of the local authority should be obtained before the proceedings arc instituted.
Let us for a moment reflect on the present position. The people who are entitled to take proceedings in the courts so far as a child in need of care, protection or control is concerned, are the local authorities. That will continue. The parent is entitled at the moment to go to the court and demonstrate to the court that his or her child is outside control. Under this Bill we are withdrawing from the parent the right to go to the court and complain to the court that his or her child is outside the parent's control. In this country we regard the position of a parent as one of extreme, vital and basic importance. Here we are, for a good reason—and Ingleby sets out the reasons—taking from the natural parents the right to go to the courts. The third position at the moment is that the police, for fairly obvious reasons, have the power to go to the courts, and they will continue to have that power under the Bill. Under the principal Act, the 1933 Act, the Home Secretary is empowered to make an order which has the effect of authorising a person—in effect it is the Royal Society and its agents. They will have the right of proceeding in the court in the case of a child in need of care, protection or control.
Let me clear up an interjection I made earlier in the evening. I quoted a case in my own constituency where the Society had proceeded, but it was not in respect of this feature, though the same problem of consultation is at stake. In the case I was putting, many months after the Society had had its consultations and given its undertaking, a child was thought to be suffering some deprivation. At 2.15 in the afternoon a school teacher, doubtless well intentioned, rang up the


Society. One of her scholars appeared to be suffering from lack of food and from other circumstances. At 4.15 the house was visited by the Society's inspectorate. Later that evening the Society's doctor turned up along with the inspector, at 8.30, and the child was taken from the home. The point I want to make is that the family service unit had been delegated by the local authority for nearly two years to help that family, and had actually made a lot of progress in the general discipline of the family, and there was food in the house, though its disposal and so on left something to be desired. Here is a case where the work of the local authority was suddenly arrested, as it were, overnight, without the necessary consultations with the local authority. This is not an isolated case, as will be seen from the Committee report, although clearly my hon. Friend could not give names and addresses. There are a large number of cases—too many to be happy about the situation—in which this consultation has not taken place. Within the work of children committees there is a growing body of trained case workers; they have a greater opportunity these days of family study and under the Bill there will be more work for them to do in future.
12.30 a.m.
We are at the crossroads. Although correspondence which I have received from the society seems to question this, I believe that no one would say a word against the general work of the Society. But we are concerned solely with the narrow point whether in the next decade, having taken away from the parent the right to proceed to the courts, we should continue, in the new phase of child care, to let the society have, through the general order of the Home Secretary, the prescriptive right to proceed to the courts, if necessary without the agreement of the local authority.
Much play has been made of consultation. Reading between the lines, it is clear that before the Bill saw the light of day the society's work in some senses had been modernised; more case workers had been taken on and I understand that there had been more education. There was some arrangement by which the Home Secretary, before the Bill took shape, indicated that the order would continue.
I shall not repeat some of the unhappy phrases which I have read and some of which I think on reflection should not have been made. That covers the society and perhaps one or two other bodies interested in child welfare. The House is solely concerned with what should be its attitude. There is another alternative on the Order Paper which it will consider later. My suggestion would write into the Bill that the authorised persons procedure should continue but only with the Home Secretary writing in the order that any proceedings must have the precondition of the consent of the child officer for the local authority. The other suggestion, which we shall reach later, is that the special order arrangement of the Home Secretary can continue but perhaps over a period of years and then be subsequently withdrawn. It may be that in enlightened London and Lancashire there is no need for these special arrangements but that there is need of them in rural areas. This suggestion could apply to areas or to times; and when we are at the crossroads, it is a question of time. The Home Secretary said that, if there was misuse or general supercession, these orders could be withdrawn. I contend that the time has arrived when one or the other of these two alternatives should be adopted.

Sir P. Roberts: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) seems to be taking two Amendments together and putting them as alternatives. I suggest to the House that that might be the reasonable way to proceed and that we could put ourselves in order by taking the two Amendments together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-(Gray): I was paying attention to what the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) was saying. He referred to a later Amendment. I should have thought that we are better to stay as we are, taking them all separately. That was how they were selected by Mr. Speaker. I heard of no agreement to combine them. It is as the House wishes.

Mr. Mapp: I was intending only to make passing reference to the other Amendment. I did not seek to argue it.
I want to refer to a contribution by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee. This is a summary of the case:
With the passing of the Bill, the need for trained professional social workers will be even greater. There is now a wide overlap between the work of the N.S.P.C.C. and many other local voluntary bodies and local authorities. In effect, we are in a transitional stage and the statutory authority is taking over the pioneer work of the very devoted voluntary social worker, who has been doing work which we all praise and for which we are all grateful."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E. 4th April, 1963; c. 157.]
I want to quote some words used in Committee by the Home Secretary. He said this:
… in order to get away from the danger of someone butting in and upsetting a carefully worked out plan there should be consultation in all cases except those cases of the utmost emergency—not only consultation between the Society and the local authority but, as has been agreed in discussions with the local authority Associations and police representatives, consultation between the police and the local authorities, so that if all this works as it should there will be a tripartite safeguard against anybody suddenly butting in while trained child-care workers are handling the case and rendering their work fruitless by suddenly bringing the child to court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 9th April, 1963; c. 202–3.]
I have quoted an instance. Many were quoted in Committee. The facts are that of the 40,000 cases per annum that the Society handles about 400, or 1 per cent., involve legal proceedings. Another 400, or 1 per cent., go to juvenile courts. It is the second 400 about which we are concerned. I cannot see any valid reason why the Home Secretary digs his heels in. The Society is on this issue rather narrow-minded about its future. It should see the opportunity that presents itself for a wider libertarian approach. By accepting the principle of a new limitation—perhaps one of these alternatives—it should see new opportunities opening out. I know in my heart that my interest in the Society was first kindled when a young man simply because I read reports in newspapers about the excellent work it was doing. From time to time we read cases of the Society having taken court action following cruelty to children. This is bound to kindle the thought in our minds that someone must be doing some good work.
It is probably, because of the publicity the Society gets—and I do not use the

word "publicity" in the commercial sense—that we have evidence of what its officers are doing. I appreciate, of course, that the Society's work does not rest on the few incidents we read about. It is concerned with a much wider sphere. In this connection, what would happen if the Amendment was accepted? If the Society thought a local authority officer was being awkward in withholding his or her consent, it could bring the matter to the attention of the Home Secretary and hon. Members. The Society is not without contacts in Parliamentary circles. On the other hand, of the 400 cases, it is more than like that 99 per cent. of them will be proceeded with in exactly the same way as now.
We will be obviating the small percentage of cases which cause irritation to local authority officers and others. If the Society wants publicity it will be able to get it. It will merely have to get the permission of the local authority in these cases. If that permission is withheld and the Society considers that unjust, it can go to the Home Secretary.
I hope that the Home Secretary will consider this matter afresh and accept the Amendment. Let us face the future of this new world with enlightened ideas. We want to ensure that there is more than consultation. Hon. Members who have had to take part in consultations of any sort know what the words "frustration" and "consultation" can sometimes mean. I am merely asking that the Society should ask the local authority to give its permission.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. James Allason: I thought at one stage that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) was going to carry his argument to its full conclusion. He spoke practically about professionals and amateurs in this field and that local authority caseworkers would be so much more effective than officials of the N.S.P.C.C. The implication was that the Society might as well get out of business. I am a firm believer in the voluntary principle. I do not believe that because local authorities are paid by the ratepayers and do not receive their money from voluntary sources they must do this work more efficiently. N.S.P.C.C. money is subscribed voluntarily. Admittedly the


Society's inspectors are paid. Nevertheless, if the money is paid voluntarily in the first place I do not see any harm in the money then being spent well and effectively.
I draw conclusions from the figures exactly opposite to those drawn by the hon. Member. The Society deals with more than 40,000 cases a year, but less than 1 per cent. of them come into court in these circumstances. The reason is that the Society has the power to prose cute and it therefore has the power to warn. This power is tremendously important. If the inspector says, "You must pull your socks up. Do you realise the penalties and that I have the power to take you to court?" and the parents turn round and say "Don't be silly"—

Miss Bacon: The hon. Member is completely confused. When he says that the officer can say, "I have the power to take you to court", presumably by "you" he means the parents. The Amendment has nothing to do with the parents.

Mr. Allason: He has power to take the child before the court as being in need of care and protection, but he says that to the parent because it is the parent who will suffer. It is in the child's interest that the case should be brought. The officer has the power to threaten the parent and tell him he must try to mend his ways. A tremendous volume of good work is done in this respect and I should like to see it sup ported. If the N.S.P.C.C. is to get out of business, which was what the hon. Member for Oldham, East was really suggesting—

Mr. Mapp: I hope that nothing said in the House, and certainly on this side, will lead to the rather clumsy words which the hon. Member has used, To talk about this sort of society, and other which are doing humanitarian work, going out of business is atrociously wrong. I made it clear that we want the Society to take on new work. We subscribe to 99 per cent. of its work. We only ask whether, within this narrow concept in a changing age, the Society should have the right to go to court without consultation.

Mr. Allason: I have been explaining that the Society cannot continue with

this case work if it has not the ultimate power to prosecute.

Mrs. Slater: Why?

Mr. Allason: Because the warning is so very necessary. Two-thirds of the more than 40,000 cases are dealt with by warning, and that warning must have power behind it. It is useless if the officer can only say, "You ought to try to behave better or we shall have to tell the local authority about you. "I do not think that that will be in any way effective. The inspectors must appear to have a certain amount of power behind them. What we are really arguing about is whether we are to have consent or consultation. Consent, as the hon. Gentleman has freely admitted, means the power of veto. He said it would not be used very often, but yet he wants to have it. I take the opposite view. I think consultation is perfectly reasonable. To me, consultation means that the two bodies which have got varying interests come together and one says, "For goodness sake, do not do that because I am trying to take other action", to which the other one says, "No, in spite of what you say, I still wish to take the child to court." In those circumstances, if consultation has taken place, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the Society to go ahead, even though the local authority may take a different view of the case.
When a local authority considers a case there is a slightly different point of view from that of the Society. We all know that a local authority never likes to lose a case. Therefore, if there is a borderline case the local authority will say, "We will not take that child before the court because we might lose and then we would be under heavy criticism." The N.S.P.C.C., on the other hand, is prepared to take a borderline case to court and let the magistrate judge. In fact, in about 20 cases out of 400 in a year, the decision goes against the Society. I do not think that is in any way a criticism of the N.S.P.C.C. It is perfectly reasonable that it should have brought the case, and it shows that the magistrate has got some power of deciding, rather than that only the open-and-shut cases should be taken before the magistrate.
The hon. Member has admitted that what he is seeking is a complete power


of veto, which I consider is another way of bringing forward the Amendment which was defeated in the Standing Committee. I hope the House will reject this Amendment because I think it is yet one more attack on the voluntary principle.

Mrs. Slater: As I have listened to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) I have been wondering whether this is a discussion of the care of children or of the continuance of voluntary bodies. We should be interested primarily in the care of children, and not in the protection of any voluntary body. That does not mean that I want to see this voluntary body put out of existence. When the hon. Member made that allegation a few moments ago either he was completely misrepresenting the case which we on this side of the House have put forward, or else the body for which he was speaking deliberately misrepresented the case so that it could have its point of view stated before the House.
Nobody has suggested that this voluntary organisation should be put out of existence. We have all been very glad of its existence. But surely we move with the times. We ought to realise that throughout the ages there have grown up many kinds of organisations, not only voluntary but local authority organisations, which are concerned with children's interests.
When discussing the matter in Committee, the Home Secretary tried to make the case that voluntary bodies had existed and, therefore, they must always be allowed to continue to do the work. It is true that our education, welfare and medical services were, perhaps, started by voluntary bodies, but as the circumstances have altered and the work has increased, it has often been necessary for local authorities to undertake more and more of the responsibility.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said that the body of which we are speaking—the N.S.P.C.C.—has a different viewpoint from local authorities and that a local authority never likes to lose a case. Local authority people who are engaged in this kind of work want, in fact, to prevent cases occurring.
The people who first come in contact with a child after school age are the

school welfare officers. They go into homes, meet parents and see what kind of homes the children have. They have to talk to the children. Very often, these are the people who have the first contact with either the parent, who may not be meeting his or her responsibility, or the child, who may not be living in circumstances in which we would desire a child to live.
I can state definitely that on the local authority side, the school welfare officers, probation officers and child care officers are extremely anxious for prevention and that a child should not be brought to court. In saying that the local authority never liked to lose a case, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead was saying that the local authority always wanted to take a case to court.

Mr. Allason: I hope that the hon. Lady will remember that we are speaking of roughly 400 cases a year out of more than 40,000. This is a very marginal element. I have not been suggesting that every case, or one case in ten, should be hustled into court. In a borderline case, however, it will be found that there are two different views. A local authority might say, "That is a borderline case. The magistrate might or might not convict. In those circumstances, it would be wiser not to bring the case, although we might like to. We have financial pressure and the finance committee, for example, will criticise us if we bring a number of cases which fail—"

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I should remind the House that we are not in Committee.

Mrs. Slater: I appreciate that we are talking about a small number of borderline cases, and it is those with which we are concerned. I am asserting that the local authority officer does not always say, "This is a case in which the child should be brought before the court; this is one which we will hustle into court." It is not always the fact that the N.S.P.C.C. says that a case should not be taken to court. Sometimes it does when the local authority people do not want a case to go to court.
I know of a case which the school welfare officers had in hand. They visited the home and saw that help from another


section of the local authority was brought in. A home help had gone to help the parent, who was not coping and, therefore, the child was not coping.
1.0 a.m.
One can imagine the horror of that person, who had spent hours of time on the family and the child, when suddenly confronted with the possibility that an outside body, a voluntary body, was going to take the child to court. That did not happen in the end because consultation took place, but it could have happened.
This voluntary body gets funds from local authorities apart from what it obtains voluntarily. The local authority grants may not be very big, but they are made. Local authorities provide funds for many voluntary bodies to carry out some of their work. There are direct and indirect ways of helping, and there are many ways by which money can be got from local authorities. Let us not forget that local authorities provide some of the money.
If the outside body is prepared to have consultation, why should not the Amendment be accepted? Why should it not be said "Yes, we will consult with them"? Why should not the local authority, which in the final analysis is the body which is responsible to the ratepayers and to the right hon. Gentleman, be the body which finally decides whether a case should go to court or not? If the necessary undertaking is given, I cannot see why we should not insert in the Bill the words which have been suggested. It seems to me that we are tonight fighting a last little bit of control which some people seek to retain. I believe that the local authority should have the last say.

Mr. Hannan: While the Clause does not apply north of the Border, I am glad to intervene in favour of the Amendment. I do so for the following reasons.
The McBoyle Report urged co-ordination of policy and staffing through a committee composed of local authority members and of administration through senior officials of local authorities for a preventive service, and it suggested that the voluntary organisations should be represented on the committee.
There are some differences in the negotiations and consultations which take

place between the Royal Society in Scotland and the local authorities compared with what apparently occurs in England and Wales. As to what has been said about the money given by local authorities to societies, Glasgow Corporation is far and away the most generous of bodies by giving £1,000 annually to the Royal Society. An hon. Member opposite insinuated that these societies were maintained only by private subscription. That is not true. But for the local authorities they would be in dire straits; that is admitted in their annual reports.
The hon. Member suggested that unless these societies have the power of veto and to take cases to court, their whole reason for existence will go by the board. That is an extraordinary claim to mike, since this Bill, this Clause and the Amendment are all directed towards a preventive service. The purpose is not to take people to court but to keep them out of it.
In Scotland, the power to bring children before a juvenile court is prescribed in the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937. I am told that proceedings in this connection would fall under two main headings, and this is one of the dangers into which we were about to fall earlier tonight. We are talking here of cases of children being brought to court as distinct from police action. Under whatever heading—whether parents or children—the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949, states, in the Eleventh Schedule, that in the case of a child or young person brought before a court as being in need of care and protection the children's officer shall be informed and it will then be his duty to provide such information as the Act prescribes for the consideration of the court.
I speak without knowledge of the English Act in this respect, but this seems a reasonable request. I am told by the deputy children's officer in Glasgow that in all such cases the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children advises him, and no local authorities have a better reputation than Glasgow and Ayrshire County Council for the care of children.
In the report which the children's department submits to the court, a recommendation is made as to the most


suitable method of dealing with the child or young person. Even where the Society wants to charge a parent, it must put the case in the hands of the Procurator Fiscal. It is he who must make the charge. If we have this system north of the Border, why not in England?
Subsection (4) of Section 62 of the principal Act says that
… a local authority, constable or authorised person …
may bring a young person before a court as in need of care and protection. In Subsection (4) it will be seen that the expression "authorised person" means
… any officer of a society which is authorised by general or special order of the Secretary of State to institute proceedings under this section, and any person who is himself so authorised.
This is the source from which the Royal Society gets its power. As has been said so often, this is a matter of a difference of emphasis.
In view of this, I find it extremely difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman should resist what is intended to be a helpful proposition for co-ordinating information. It goes back again to the case committees. If it is of any assistance to the right hon. Gentleman, page 20 of the McBoyle Report contains two excellent paragraphs on the rôle of voluntary organisations and mentions the Royal Society specifically. Eminent men were among the members of this Committee which acknowledged the work of the Society and suggested that voluntary organisations had a special aptitude for exploratory and experimental work, perhaps because of their greater freedom and flexibility, but that, nevertheless, their primary function should be providing information, leaving it to the local authority to take remedial action without resorting too often, unless circumstances demanded it, to some extraordinary action in the courts. If that is done, it has to be with the knowledge of the local authority itself, and the Society, if it still wanted to retain this power, would then proceed. All the difficulties which have been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman have been overcome already and again the civilising influence of Scotland might be followed, for the Home Secretary would

then find it difficult to find a complete answer to our case.

Miss Vickers: In view of my earlier Amendment, I hope that it will not seem illogical that I support this. Why does the Society want this power? It says that it wants this power to carry out its work, but I cannot conceive that it could not do so without this power which, in any case, is very unpleasant. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) put the matter very well in Standing Committee when he said:
When it comes to introducing one more person with power to bring a child before the court, the N.S.P.C.C. inspector is himself not a voluntary body, but an extra-statutory official because he has delegated statutory powers to bring a child before the court".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 4th April, 1963; c. 184.]
Therefore, in this case we are talking not about a voluntary individual but about someone with delegated powers for a specific job.
It has been pointed out that a very small number of people are brought before the courts by the Society, and that does not prove that its work would be hindered by the loss of this power. One or two letters have been sent to me on behalf of the Society and one of them, dated 21st March, 1963, referred to the Second Reading speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) and quoted her as saying:
Just as a local authority, with all its services, is dealing with certain problems, the N.S.P.C.C. may take a child to court at the precise moment when the local authority is perhaps doing its best to keep the child out of court and is succeeding.
The writer commented:
I wish to state most emphatically that this fear is groundless, for the Society has given an undertaking to the Home Office not to bring any child before a juvenile court without prior consultation with the local authority, unless circumstances arise in which the degree of urgency is such as to make prior consultation impossible.
I cannot imagine any case in which the urgency is so immediate that there will be no chance of prior consultation, and I do not think that this loophole is necessary.
1.15 a.m.
One of the documents sent to me contains the following statement:
The parents with whom the Inspectors deal consist mainly of those who have failed to respond to other agencies"—


I should like to know what "other agencies" means—
or have continually refused assistance, and the welfare of whose children is endangered. It is these parents who often feel neglected and ostracised themselves, by the rest of the community. Firmness often gives a form of security since they are immature. Methods used therefore cannot always be entirely permissive. An Inspector's work could perhaps best be described as being case work combined where necessary with the positive use of authority.
This is almost blackmail—"If you do not do this we shall take your child to court". It is a form of blackmail to which I cannot subscribe, and that is why I am worried about the Society continuing to have this power. We know that the majority of the members of the Society are not trained. We have gone to a great deal of trouble, through the Young-husband Report, to decide the type of training that is desirable for people who have to deal with young children.
As I say, these people are not trained at all. Further, I have great objections to them wearing uniform—and I have said this more than once—because it tells the neighbours that an individual from the Society has called, and I do not think that that is desirable if one is trying to help the family. If these inspectors decided not to wear uniform, I think that they would do the job a great deal better than they do now.
I have had some experience of taking children to court. I was a welfare officer in Malaya, and one of my jobs under the Women and Children's Protection Act in Malaya was to take children to court if they were in need of protection. I remember a widow who left her four children in the care of their grandparents while she went to work. The grandparents sold one of the children. I managed to find the child and to discover the bargain price. It was quite interesting, and I had to take the child to court. At the request of the mother, I took all four children to court because she was frightened that the grandparents might sell the others.
Taking children to court is a very difficult and unpleasant job, because even if parents are not as loving and kind as they might be, children are frightened of being taken away to a different world. One has to think many times before taking this very hard and deliberate step, and I

therefore think that every type of consultation is necessary. Every type of person should be consulted and the fewer the people who have this power the better.
I recognise the first-class and pioneer work which this organisation has done, and I hope that it will continue with preventive measures. The greater the number of people who can get together to help in the work of prevention the better, but when it comes to taking drastic action such as taking a child to court, the fewer the people who have this power the better. I should have thought that the Society would be only too willing and anxious to get rid of this arduous and difficult job. It would make its work very much easier if the parents had complete confidence in the inspectors because they would then get their co-operation far more easily.
This letter to which I have already referred says:
I very much hope that the Society may have your support in resisting the proposal to limit its powers to help children. To put the matter at its lowest, the Society provides a second line of defence to the children which over the years has been proved to be of great value, and it has yet to be shown that any good would come from removing that line.
I am yet to be convinced that any good will come from leaving the Society with this power. I would have thought that if it was the second line of defence for the children it should try to protect the children, perhaps, against local authorities, rather than take the children to court. I presume that somebody must have this power, but I think that it would be far better left with the local authorities. The last thing the Society would want to do if it were acting as a defence for the children and cementing the family together would be to take them to court.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment, although I do not think that it goes far enough. I would have preferred one of the Amendments moved in Committee. Nevertheless, I hope that this one will be accepted, because consultation will be an added advantage to the families, and particularly to the children.

Miss Bacon: What we are discussing now has nothing to do with the power that the N.S.P.C.C. possesses to take


parents to court for neglecting or ill-treating their children. That must be made clear, because some hon. Members have spoken as though this was something to do with parents; we are talking only about the children.
We must also get perfectly clear the fact that we must not regard the Society and local authorities as being of equal status in the care of children. Local authorities regard the taking of children to court as one of the minor tasks they have to undertake. They are charged with providing homes to which the children have to go when they have been taken to court and have been put in the care of the local authorities. That is very important. When the Society has taken a child to court it is the end of the matter for the Society; the case is finished, and it has no further responsibility. The matter is then handed to the local authority, which is charged with caring for the child in one of its homes. It is quite wrong to equate the local authorities on the one hand with the Society on the other. We must also remember that Clause 1 lays important duties on local authorities to work in the home in order to try to prevent the appearance of the children in court. The whole emphasis of our approach in the Bill is to try to keep children out of court as much as possible.
All that the Amendment asks is that the local authority should be told when the Society wishes to take somebody to court, and that the authority should make the decision. We had another Amendment on the Order Paper, which I understand has not been selected, which was slightly different and which would have taken away the power from the Society or any authorised person, would have given them the right, which parents have, to appeal against a local authority's decision not to take the child to court.
The Amendment that we are discussing is very important. It simply provides that it shall be the decision of the local authority, which is entrusted with the duty of trying to keep children out of court.
When I first attended the Committee stage of the Bill I did not know very much about the N.S.P.C.C., other than that it was, as I thought, doing a good

job of work, particularly in preventing child cruelty and neglect, and in taking parents to court. I cannot say that I regard the Society today in quite the same light as I did at the beginning of the Committee proceedings. I will not go into details about the rather unfortunate document which was sent to all Members of the Committee referring to local authorities as bureaucrats and officials, and so on.
I would say just two things. First of all, all—or most—Members of this House have received from their local committees a letter, in identical terms, sent out by the national committee to the various secretaries, and they have in turn written to us, and many Members have said to me, "What about this letter? We have got some jolly good people on our local N.S.P.C.C." And so they have. But I sometimes wonder if those very good voluntary members of local committees know what is being said and done in their name. I am quite certain that the secretary to the Leeds branch of the N.S.P.C.C. did not realise what was being done in her name. She wrote me the usual letter. The national committee had evidently forgotten to tell her that I was the one who moved the Amendment, and she wrote to me, and the letter was rather curious. I am pretty certain she did not know that the document the N.S.P.C.C. headquarters had sent out refers to local authority members as "bureaucrats" and "officials" because this woman's husband happens to be a member of Leeds City Council. I am sure she would be quite surprised to know her husband was referred to in such terms.
I have been profoundly disappointed with the N.S.P.C.C. throughout the whole of the proceedings on this Bill—

Sir P. Roberts: I can appreciate that the hon. Lady may be disappointed at the moment, but she has not heard any speech from me yet. I appreciate that she got up before she had a chance to hear me, but she will have an opportunity later, I hope.

Miss Bacon: I may change my mind. I do not know.
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that we Members of the Committee on the Bill have received valuable assistance from many bodies concerned with child care and welfare, and we have been very


grateful indeed for the assistance which they have given us. The child care officers sent us a very valuable memorandum on the whole of this Bill. They went through every Clause to show how they thought we might improve the Bill in the interests of the children. The children's officers did the same. They sent a most valuable memorandum on the whole of this Bill—to every Member of the Committee. The probation officers' help has been absolutely invaluable. They sent out documents and things about this Clause and that Clause, and suggested Amendments, because they care so deeply about children. The education welfare officers mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), the approved school teachers, not only sent us memoranda but have been to see us; we have talked with them; they have been most helpful about every Clause. And so have various local authorities.
What disappoints me so profoundly—I must say this because I have been thinking it so long—about the N.S.P.C.C. is that the only point in the whole of the Bill with which it has been in correspondence with us or any other Members has been about its own powers under the Bill. We have nothing from the Society, absolutely nothing, about any of the rest of the Bill, and it has been only this one thing in which it has been interested.
While at the beginning of this Bill I was willing to praise the N.S.P.C.C, I do believe that its whole conduct during the Committee on the Bill has not been such as to make me have any great confidence in it in looking after children. I am sorry to say this, but I really have been feeling this for some time. As I say, it has done very valuable work, particularly regarding the parents, but I believe that any decision to take a child to court should be one taken by the local authority charged with the duty of trying to prevent children from going to court—this is the power we confer on the local authority under Clause 1—the local authority which will have to deal with the child after it has been dealt with by the court.
I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. I know that the right hon. Gentleman said that if there is not consultation he

has the power to withdraw his authorisation. I hope that he will go a stage further. I am not sure that in his heart of hearts he does not think as we do on this matter. I am sure that the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State does; she indicates dissent, but her speech in Committee, while concluding with the hope that the Amendment would be defeated, was in favour of the Amendment and could have been made from our side of the Committee.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman feels that there is a difficulty here which is shown by the cases which we have quoted. I trust that it will be left to the local authority to decide when a childs hall be taken to court. We do not want to interfere with the right to take a parent to court, but to take a child to court is a very serious matter which I believe should be in the hands of the local authority.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Brooke: The House may like to be reminded that it was in 1933 that the special power of the N.S.P.C.C. to institute care, protection or control proceedings was first conferred on the society. The special power might have been withdrawn at any time in the last 30 years. It might have been withdrawn at any time by the Home Secretary of the day, for example by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) during his long tenure of the Home Secretary ship; and, in particular, it might have been withdrawn at the time of the passing of the 1948 Act. In fact, my predecessors, regardless of party, for the last 30 years have felt it right to continue that authorisation of the N.S.P.C.C.
I will not go over all the arguments which were adduced upstairs, but I want to make it clear that I have the power to withdraw that authorisation and that if there were substantial evidence that the society had not been seeking to observe the undertaking which it has given on consultation, then I or my successors would have to consider very seriously withdrawing it.
May I make a passing reference to a passing reference by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) to another matter lying a little outside the Amendment? I assure him that I could give authority to the society or some other body which


would last for a particular period or would cover a limited area. That Amendment to which he referred is not necessary; the power exists under the law as it stands.
But it must be one thing or the other. There is no halfway house. Either the society should have this authorisation or the authorisation should be withdrawn. As it is, the society is operating under an authorisation which I wish to continue unless circumstances change. I think that the authorisation should be one granted by the Home Secretary. If the Amendment were agreed to it would mean that a certain local authority could in effect withdraw the Home Secretary's authorisation in a certain field by refusing its consent. I do not think that that can be right. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) to the Scottish arrangement. He stated correctly, I am advised—although I do not claim to be an expert in Scots law—that the children's officer in Scotland is notified of care or protection proceedings in advance so that he can put information before the committee. I have no doubt that that is so in Scotland, but I think that the hon. Gentleman submitted that it was not so in England.
The fact is that similar provision is made as regards England and Wales in Section 35 of the principal Act. That Section requires any person bringing a child or young person before a juvenile court as being in need of care or protection to notify the local authority and the probation service so that they can make inquiries about the case and can put before the court whatever information they think may be of assistance. This is a duty to notify of impending proceedings. It is not, as this Clause would make it, a duty to seek the permission of the local authority before initiating proceedings.
The Society has given its undertaking to consult. If the Society is to have authority from the Home Secretary at all, as I think it should, I do not feel that we should take away with the other hand what we have given with the first hand and endow the local authority with a power to veto the desire of the Society to take proceedings.
The hour is late and I do not think that the House wishes me to go into the

whole vista which is opened up by discussion of the position of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I submit that it must be one thing or the other. Either the authority to the Society to bring proceedings should be withdrawn, as I appreciate that a large number of hon. Members opposite, to judge by our Committee proceedings, would wish—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I know that two hon. Members out of 300 or so on this side of the House have indicated that they would wish it withdrawn, but they are in the minority. There have been, I am sorry to say, considerable attacks on the policy of the Society from members of the Opposition.

Miss Bacon: From both sides.

Mr. Brooke: There have been considerable and widespread attacks from the Opposition. I do not agree with those. I believe that the Society is doing excellent work and should be trusted to continue with its work, provided that it observes the pledge that it has given. I shall certainly act carefully on what I said would be my attitude when we were discussing these matters in Committee. I am not prepared to advise the House to accept the Amendment and narrow the scope of the Society's work. I believe that either we should trust it to do its work free from any veto by the local authority or we should not trust it at all. My choice is the former.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: Some of the remarks I intend to make I have already made on a previous Clause, but they are worth repeating in view of what the Home Secretary has just said. There has been misconception and a great deal of misrepresentation. Most of the misrepresentation, I am sorry to say, comes from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. This is an Amendment to Clause 2 of a very important Bill which will do something for the future. It will not do anything retrospectively, apart from enforcing retrospective payments due under an order when the child has gone away. We are not concerned with the 400 cases about which the N.S.P.C.C. has sent us circulars. We are concerned with the future. If the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) will read the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers)


in tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT he will find in it some real truths; truths which contradict what he was saying.
In reality the Bill should have commended itself to the N.S.P.C.C.—unless the Society has changed its attitude. Its title refers to the prevention of cruelty. Is not unnecessarily taking a child to court cruel? Is there not an atmosphere, a stigma, attached to a child being taken to court? That stigma applies to adults, let alone children. Even if a person is found completely innocent and told by the magistrate or judge, "You leave this court without a stain on your character" the person in question knows the old English proverb, "There is never smoke without fire." People may leave court with their characters completely cleared, but are they considered by everyone to be whiter than white? Of course not.
The Society sent hon. Members a good deal of correspondence. None of it commended itself to me. It was ill-advised, ill-written and by no means a recommendation for the Society. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead seemed to be taking part in what I thought was a sinister campaign by the hierarchy—not the volunteers and contributors—of the N.S.P.C.C. I received a letter from the Birmingham and district branch of the N.S.P.C.C. and I wrote back saying that I had received similar correspondence. The secretary of the branch then wrote saying that his letter had been spontaneous. I have actually received three such letters.
I was, for my sins, the Whip for the Opposition in Committee. Hon. Members came to me for advice. I went to the Vote Office and got them copies of the Standing Committee minutes. Several people were surprised when they saw what was in them. I quote from the letter I received from the Birmingham and district branch of the Society. It stated:
The Members of my Executive Committee reported at our last monthly meeting that local supporters of the Society are much concerned to read the advcrse, and in our opinion, unfounded, comments which have been made about the N.S.P.C.C. during the recent debates on the Children and Young Persons Bill, particularly as it appears to have been suggested that the Society mainly exists to prosecute in cases of cruelty to children.
That is a misconception. This is cruelty to children. The hon. Member

for Hemel Hempstead tried to suggest that taking a child to court was not the same as a prosecution.

Mr. Allason: Perhaps the hon. Member has forgotten that it is also a question of prosecuting the parents in cases of cruelty. The figures are similar—400 cases a year—and perhaps the hon. Member has got them mixed up.

Mr. Howell: The only thing the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead got right in his speech were the figures. I have the same figures with me. I know all about the 400 and the 1 per cent. He is trying to argue about the prosecution of parents. I would answer him on this aspect if it were not for the fact that I would be out of order. The Clause under consideration refers to children, not parents.

Mr. Allason: The hon. Member keeps accusing me of referring to the prosecution of parents. He was the first to introduce that argument. I merely mentioned this matter when he commented on my remarks. I have not before referred to the prosecution of parents.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten what he said. He will have to read HANSARD tomorrow. He said that he wanted to retain this right in order to threaten the parents. I challenged the Birmingham secretary to quote any hon. Member of the Opposition who had criticised the Society for its work other than on this point of taking children to court. He came back with all sorts of excuses, quoting from something which apparently I had said and which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) may have forgotten but which he himself said tonight.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) have been accusing the Opposition of running a campaign against the Society. That is entirely wrong. All we are concerned with is the protection of the child and that he should go to court only as a last extremity and with authority. The secretary of the Birmingham society said:
This apart, there is a general misconception that the Society is primarily a prosecuting agency and it seems to me that your speech in Standing Committee lends colour to this.


You are reported to have said, "This is a memorandum in which there is a demand—in which it is asked that this right shall be retained to prosecute a child.
The letter goes on to argue what "prosecute" means, but it seems to me that if a child is taken to court one is prosecuting him. It adds:
We must remember that this organisation is a National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—not a society for the prosecution of children.
But one begins to doubt this. Why on earth did the Society receive an assurance from the Government before the Bill was published that this right would be retained in it? Why did not the Society do as other organisations have done and recommend ways in which the Bill could be improved? Has the Society forgotten what it means to look after the interests of children?
I have paid the tribute, and I repeat it, to the Society that it has prevented a great deal of cruelty to children. It has taken cases to court. I hope that every time it finds a parent being cruel to a child it will prosecute them. But when it comes to taking a child to court I want to prevent the sort of case where the child is used as a shuttlecock in the court. Let us assume that an inspector employed by the Society, who is a professional man, has the same qualifications and standing as a children's officer. If he goes to court, taking a child as in need of care and protection, and the parents take the children's officer and the officer says, "This case has been brought without my permission, authority or consent" what will happen? The child is there as a pawn in the game between solicitors for the one side and the other. Is that what the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead wants the child to be?

Mr. Allason: No.

Mr. Howell: The Amendment will be rejected. The Society has been promised that. I hope that the hon. Member will tell us that all the Society's inspectors will be not only advised but ordered that they must not take a child to court without the approval of the children's officer. The hon. Member for Heeley appears to be smiling. This is the sinister part of this case. The Society wants to retain the right, even without the approval of

the local authority, to take the child to court. I do not want to see the child used, as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead indicated he should be used, as a subtle form of blackmail in telling the parents be taken to court by all that I will take the child to court. "Let the parents be taken to court by all means, but do not let us use the child for that purpose. After all, if a child is involved in circumstances in which the Society or the local authority contemplate taking him to court, the parents must be bad. But that type of parent will not be coerced by the threat of being taken to court, because very often he has been to court before. It may be as a result of the father having stolen and having appeared in court that the child is in danger.
The Society has made the case for my hon. Friend. It could not have put up a better argument. I will not go over the figures again. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead was quite right; 1 per cent of these cases have involved prosecutions and a further 1 per cent. juvenile court proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman has said that we must have one or the other, that there is no in-between. That is where I differ from him. This is not a question whether the Society has the right to prosecute on its own initiative or lose the case altogether. I have no objection to the Society having the necessary power. In fact, if it is necessary for a child to be taken to court I would prefer the Society to do it rather than the local authority. But I would like it to happen with the support of the local authority.
I notice that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has not been able to stick the pace and has left the Chamber, but she spoke as a magistrate. I am not a magistrate, but if I were and the Society approached me I would say, "Where is the other part of the tripartite?" The police would always be represented in court. Probably a woman P.C. would be there to give evidence, but I would want to know where the remainder of the tripartite was.
If I may quote again the N.S.P.C.C. paper,
Unfortunately, there will always be a small number of cases for which there is no other course open than to institute legal proceedings in the child's interests"—


mark those words—"in the child s interests". I agree with that. But one must be certain that it is in the child's interests that he is taken to court, and not as a result of the views of one man. It may be necessary according to the N.S.P.C.C. inspector, but I would rest better in my bed if I knew that before a child could be taken to court the N.S.P.C.C. would be prosecuting with the approval of the local authority. In other words, there would be a supporting application.
If a voluntary society is paying a professional man to carry out its work, and a professional body—the local authority—supports the application, I cannot see the magistrate turning it down. On the other hand, without this support, the magistrate might say, "Where is the local authority in this matter?" Make no mistake, many magistrates are local authority people. They are aldermen and councillors. They will know that there is a children's officer and a children's department, and they may wonder why the N.S.P.C.C. is bringing a case to court without the supporting application of their own children's officer.
I know that we will not get the Amendment, but it would be in the interest of every child who might find himself or herself in this position and I am sorry that the Home Secretary was committed to reject it even before the Bill was printed.

Sir P. Roberts: First, my understanding is that the Society does support the Bill. It had discussions with Home Office representatives when the Bill was published. We had disagreements about various Clauses, but we were satisfied by the arguments put up by Ministers and the Society supports the Bill. Therefore, there is no reason why the Society should go to the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) or anybody else on the benches opposite to bring in Amendments to a Bill which it supports.

Mr. MacColl: We support it.

Mrs. Slater: Mrs. Slater rose—

Sir P. Roberts: I cannot give way; time is getting on. There was argument that this was the only point in which the Society was interested. That is absolute nonsense, because we have had

a great deal of discussion, not with the hon. Lady or with hon. Members opposite, but with the Government, who were responsible.
I come to the broad issue—

Miss Bacon: Will the hon. Member give way?

Sir P. Roberts: I am sorry, I want to get on.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: This House will be responsible for what goes out.

Mrs. Slater: Everybody else supports the Bill.

Sir P. Roberts: I am saying that the N.S.P.C.C. supports the Bill, and that is why it did not give a lot of Amendments to the Opposition. That is the only point I am trying to make.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) said, quite rightly, that we were at a cross roads. I have been a little surprised that after that statement, with which I agree, there was a suggestion that we were not doing anything and that it was not a cross roads. I agree that this is a cross roads, and we have to look at the part which a voluntary society plays when the majority of the work is done by the State or by local authority assistance. There is no doubt that this is the problem that we must look at. It cannot be belittled one way or the other or shrugged off by saying, "We support the Society, but".
On the narrow issue of bringing children in proceedings before the court, we are, I hope, in all quarters of the House, trying to look after the interests of the children. I feel a little tired when it is suggested that one society or one local authority is looking after its own interests. I do not accept that. I believe that all Members of the House are trying to look after the interests of the children. Therefore, this is the problem.
When one is trying to help children, usually the information about their harm comes from the ordinary public. We have to look to the ordinary public for the information, which goes either to the police, to the local authority or to the N.S.P.C.C. In some extraordinary way, different people make different approaches. Some go willingly to the teacher, or the teacher goes


willingly to the local authority. Some people will go to the police, others will not. Some will go to the N.S.P.C.C. and others will not. All I am suggesting is that we need all the various avenues to get the information and that we should not close any door in trying to save a child who is being badly treated. That is why the N.S.P.C.C.—and I am glad that the Government agree—should be allowed to continue as regards taking children to court, which is the narrow issue.
It has been suggested that children should be prevented from going to court. The whole basis of what we are trying to do, on all sides, is to prevent a child being neglected, harmed, hurt or badly brought up in a home.
2.0 a.m.
Therefore, the longer one leaves that child in that home—so long as it is admitted that harm is being done—not taking it to court is doing it further harm. So it is wrong to suggest that the right approach in a case where there is obvious neglect is to leave that neglect in order to see whether it will get better. That does not appeal to me. It may be a question of urgency to stop the child receiving further harm. I say that because I did not accept the argument that the N.S.P.C.C. ought to be trying to prevent children being taken to court. That may well be the very last thing which should happen.
Let me try to bring the debate back more into an atmosphere of good will. I have been surprised—I did not attend the Standing Committee, I regret to say—by some of the vehemence I have heard in the House on a matter on which there should be no vehemence. Among local authorities, children's officers and the great majority of those working for voluntary bodies there is a great deal of good will and co-operation, and there is a great deal of admiration one for the other. It would be most unfortunate if the idea went out from the House or were gained from reading the debate that there is any friction. If there is any, it is only marginal anyway. The great majority of these people are working happily together.
Therefore, I was hurt when I was trying to make this point earlier on to the

hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell). I was saying that out of 80,000 cases in two years, in only one had a local authority actually opposed the N.S.P.C.C. in court. The hon. Member suggested that I was saying what I knew to be untrue. I assure him that that is not the case. He may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. But it hurt me a little when he suggested that I was saying something to the House which I knew to be untrue. That was not so. There has been only one clash between a local authority and the N.S.P.C.C. about taking a child to court. Admittedly, there have been arguments and disagreements from case to case, but in only one case has a local authority actually opposed an application by the N.S.P.C.C.
Having said that one wants to see co-operation and good will, I have been a little surprised at the vehemence with which some hon. Gentlemen and Ladies have approached this matter. The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said that she started with some good will towards the Society but has now turned against it. I do not think she was very fair. In the Standing Committee she produced three cases to which she gave a good deal of publicity. When the N.S.P.C.C. asked her kindly to let it have the evidence—because if the cases existed the Society must have known about them—she refused to do so. Thus, the Society is in the position of not being able to answer, if answer is necessary, or confirm, if confirmation is necessary, the points she raised. It is not a fair way to make an attack on the Society by not giving it an opportunity to reply.
I was a little surprised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) over some of the things she said. She held herself out to be an expert in the matter. She was actually criticising the Society because it has not got trained inspectors. "Not trained at all" were the words she used. That is quite untrue. The N.S.P.C.C. inspectors have considerable training. Maybe it is not enough, and maybe they must have more, but they certainly go through a considerable training.

Mr. Mapp: How long?

Sir P. Roberts: Up to three months. Then they go back again for refresher training. Of course they have training. Then they go with other inspectors. They are trained for two or three years under various people with experience. To say that they do not having training shows that hon. Members do not know what they are talking about. I regret to have to say that.
The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East mentioned the child care officers and the Child Care News in this respect. Admittedly there was particularly bad and biased report of the Committee upstairs in it, and admittedly it was no doubt done by one person. It is unfortunate that a one-sided attack on the Society should get publicity of this kind, which cannot do good to the children. I hope that when this Bill finally reaches the Statute Book we shall try to forget some of the altercations which have taken place. We are not trying to defend one institution or another. We are trying to get a lot of dedicated people to work together. I hope we shall bear that in mind.
In considering this Amendment, we are thinking of the case of a child who may or may not be neglected or who may be in need of protection. Supposing a local authority official says the child must stay at home because it is not actually being harmed, while a Society official—perhaps a man who has spent most of his life in this work—says he thinks the child is being harmed. It is question of issue between them.
We are not suggesting that local authority officials are invariably wrong or that Society officials are invariably right. But we do say that we have a forum in the court, and that if there is a disagreement the magistrates should judge. Otherwise, one sets up the children's officer of a local authority as a court in himself, and that fundamentally must be wrong. We are having more and more delegated authority and we must try to avoid taking the ultimate power from the court itself. This was very well put in the Reservation to the Ingleby Report by Sir Thomas Williams, who said:
It would mean that a 'tribunal' composed of servants of the State, i.e. the local authority or the police, would have to give permission before access could be gained to the magistrates.

This is fundamental. Let no one set himself up as being infallible and above the law. If there is a disagreement, then let the magistrates decide it and not some local official, who may, I know, be acting with the best will in the world.
We must remember that the Society has been doing this work for a very long time and it is respected and trusted by a large number of people. I do not think we should do anything which would undermine that. My right hon. Friend has said that he is watching the matter carefully. The Society has said that it will consult. If there is anything wrong it is most desirous to rectify it. If we do take this line and allow some of the dust to settle, I am certain that the welfare of the children will be better for the passing of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end to insert:
(3) In section 62(4) of the principal Act there shall be inserted at the end of the subsection the words "An order made under this subsection may direct for what period and in what petty sessions area the authority to institute proceedings shall apply
I do not want to rehash the arguments which we have already had. I want only to summarise them having listened to and taken some part in the debates in Standing Committee. The background to this situation is that one society was authorised thirty years ago and that no change had occurred since.
That indicates two things. The first is that there has been no recognition of the complete transformation of the children's services in the last thirty years. At that time, there were no children's committees, no Children Act, 1948, and there were rather fewer women police. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) is now leaving us, but in the Standing Committee we suffered rather a lot from representatives of the Society leaving after they had made their speeches and I was hoping that the hon. Member would do me the courtesy of listening to me.
The other thing is that many other societies are now doing the kind of work which at one time was the monopoly of the N.S.P.C.C. For example, there are societies like the Family Service Unit, the Family Welfare Association, the


Moral Welfare Council and others all actively engaged in this work but none of them in a special statutory position. The whole question of authorisation needs to be reviewed.
I was not impressed by any of the arguments in Standing Committee except one, that put forward by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson). He said of hon. Members:
Very many of them have had experience in counties and cities of powerful local authorities which are extremely efficient bodies, but it cannot be said honestly that all local authorities have quite the same experience. Some of the poorer authorities are not able to be so well organised and it is true that local administration is unevenly carried out in many parts of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 4th April, 1963; c. 177.]
In a sense, this is fair comment for the hon. Member—I am not making any reflections on his county, which I think is Cornwall, is a rural Member and urban Members—

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I was drawing on my pre-war experience when as a solicitor for the Great Western Railway I attended what used to be called police courts all over the country from Chester to Penzance and had considerable experience of local authorities in many parts, not only rural areas.

Mr. MacColl: I am sure that the hon. Member spoke with considerable experience, but pre-war experience of the organisation of local authorities in this respect is not relevant, because since the war we have had the Curtiss Committee and the Children Act and now we have Clause 1, which are all tremendous steps forward. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was putting his finger on a very arguable point, if he will not think that I am being cheeky in saying that.
2.15 a.m.
I do not think that the N.S.P.C.C. needs this power in the large towns, and I do not think that its absence would be noticed. I am not referring to prosecutions for cruelty, but to care and protection cases. In London we have extremely good police women and a very well organised police force which does a great deal of this work to the admiration of everyone. We have a competent children's authority, with a great deal of experience, which is capable of shoulder-

ing this work, and in the big cities and large urban areas there is no doubt at all that this power is now out of date. It belongs to a period thirty years ago when the situation of the social services was very different from what it is now.
I am suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman should have the power—he may have it already, I do not know; it is a nice point of interpretation—to be able to say that in areas where the children's authority and the police are well organised to do this job there is no need to have a third body in at all, but in areas where, for one reason or another, the authorities are not yet prepared for the work because they have not the necessary staff and experience, a voluntary body can be brought in to deal with the problem.
It may be the N.S.P.C.C., or it may be some other voluntary body which would be authorised to do this work, and the authorisation could be limited to, perhaps, the petty sessions area. I think that this would be the best unit to use, because a local authority area sometimes overlaps a petty sessions area, and sometimes a local authority area includes a number of petty sessions areas.
The authorisation could also be for a fixed period. In other words the right hon. Gentleman could say to the Barsetshire County Council that he was prepared to authorise a voluntary body to do this work for five years in the petty sessions area covering Barchester, but that after that period he would expect the local authority to be equipped to do the work.
We have tried many ways of getting round these difficulties, and nobody can accuse us of being dogmatic. We have tried the straightforward withdrawal of authorisation. We have tried withdrawal of authorisation coupled with appeal to the court against the refusal of the children's authority to take action. We have tried statutory consultation between the Society, the various bodies, and the local authority, and now we are trying to limit the area and to give the authorisation for a particular period of time.
I think that the solution to the problem lies in one of those suggestions. I put this forward as another of the possible ways of doing it. It seems to me that the tone of the right hon.


Gentleman's speech meant that he was watching the situation, but that there were areas in which he was not certain that if the authority was withdrawn there would not be a breakdown of the service. If that were so—and the right hon. Gentleman is a better judge of the situation than I am—it would be most undesirable. Let the right hon. Gentleman have power to make it a limited authority. If he finds that co-operation is not working, that the training of the Society's inspectors is not adequate, he can withdraw the authority, except in areas where there might be a breakdown. There does not have to be a complete withdrawal so that an area suddenly finds itself faced with a new situation for which it is not prepared. But there could certainly be a withdrawal in particular areas where the other bodies are well equipped to do the work. This is a useful flexibility to authorisation.

Mr. Brooke: I can assure the hon. Member that his purpose is already accomplished. Section 62 (4) of the principal Act, as it stands, is, I am advised, sufficient to enable the Home Secretary to restrict the authority conferred on a society or person to a specified period or place. I have no present intention of exerting those powers in a restrictive manner as to either time or place, but I am assured without doubt that there is no need for the Amendment to confer on the Secretary of State a power to restrict the authority given to a certain period or a certain area. With that assurance I hope that the hon. Member will be willing to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir P. Roberts: I feel guilty in that, in the heat of the debate, I mentioned that the training was three months. I understand that at present the preliminary training in the R.S.P.C.C. is six months and that it will soon be extended to a year.

Mr. MacColl: Even when the right hon. Gentleman is making a concession he can hardly do it generously. He says that he is not going to use this power, although he has it. He should examine the Amendment and see whether it is the answer to the problem. There is no case for keeping an authorised person in London, and I suspect that that consideration applies to other areas. Many people would say that they do not get

particularly excited about getting rid of an authorised body, but there are some people who are connected with this matter who do think that it matters. There are areas where it might matter. Let the right hon. Gentleman look at the question from the point of view of deciding in which areas the working of the machinery of the police and the children's authorities is sufficient to be able to do the work.
Having made that point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7.—(EXTENSION OF POWERS OF JUVENILE COURT TO DEAL WITH PERSONS IN THE CARE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

Miss Bacon: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, to leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): With this Amendment we can discuss the Amendment in page 5, line 17, to eave out subsection (2), and the Amendment in line 38, to leave out paragraph (b).

Miss Bacon: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Since 1933 local authorities have had the power to apply to the courts for so-called refractory children who are in their care to be transferred to approved schools. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman and we see in the annual statistical report about approved schools and remand homes—that about 30 children a year are so transferred. Until the Bill came before us this power did not apply to children who were under care under the terms of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act, 1958, or the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act, 1960. This Clause extends the power of removal from a children's home to an approved school to those children who are in the care of an authority under those two Acts.
We had a discussion in Committee about the extension to children who were there under the terms of those two Acts. I felt that it was quite reasonable of the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary to say that we could not treat children who were in the same home in different ways. We agreed with that argument. Whereas the Government


propose to extend this power to these children, we propose to do away with it altogether.
We had some discussion in Committee as to what the word "refractory" meant. Everybody has his own definition of "refractory". According to one definition it means "stubborn" or "awkward". If all stubborn or awkward people were put into approved schools a great many of us in this House would not have escaped being in an approved school at some time or another. So it is very difficult to define what this word "refractory" means.
However, it was not so much the choice of the word we objected to as the whole system of committing children to approved schools in this way—children who had not committed any crime, who had not done wrong, but just children who were just stubborn or awkward, or in the care of the children's committee.
I would remind hon. Members of the kind of children with whom we are dealing. These are children in the care of the local authority for some particular reason, often deprived children, children who have had an upheaval in their lives. I have here a report of my own city's care of children committee and the reasons why the various children are in that committee's care. These are some of the reasons: the death of the mother, and the father not living with the family, or unable to care for the children; deserted by the mother and the father not living with the family, or unable to care for the children; no parent or guardian; need for care temporarily because the mother is ill or is certified as a mental defective, or receiving treatment for mental illness; or tuberculosis. The child may be there because he is illegitimate and the mother is unable to provide a home; the parent or guardian may be in prison or remanded in custody; the family may be homeless because of eviction; or there may be unsatisfactory home conditions.
There are many other reasons, but we are dealing with children who are particularly unfortunate, children who are deprived, and children who have had one upheaval already in their lives. Even normal children can become refractory, stubborn or awkward, but we are dealing

with children who have not been living a normal home life, and it is for that reason they are in the care of the children's authority. If we do not accept these Amendments that will mean that we are still giving power to children's committees to take such children, if they are refractory, straight to the courts to be sent to an approved school.
Children go to approved schools who are not in the care of the children's authority either because they have committed an offence or because they are in need of care, protection or control, but even if children are brought before the courts as in need of care, protection or control it does not automatically follow that they are sent to an approved school. I am talking of children living a normal home life at home. They may be under a supervision order. They may be dealt within a variety of ways, but these children brought before the courts because they are refractory in a children's home are almost automatically—the hon. Lady shakes her head, but at any rate these thirty children go to an approved school. Perhaps the hon. Lady will explain what else happens to them, and how many were brought before the courts as being refractory are dealt with in some other way than of going to an approved school. It is not automatic for a child who is not in a children's home. All we ask is that children who are in care should be treated in the same way as others. If anything, they should be treated more leniently because of their circumstances. If they have been neglected by their parents, if the mother has run away and left the child, if the father is in prison and the mother cannot look after the child, if the mother is in a mental hospital and that is why the child is in care, this may be the reason for the children being refractory in the children's home.
This affects 30 children in any year in the children's homes of 145 local authorities. Surely it would be worthwhile for the Minister to decide to do away with this process to taking refractory children out of a children's home and sending them to an approved school. They have suffered one upheaval in their lives and we are to inflict another. This procedure would be reasonable if the child had committed a crime or had done the kind of things which mean that he is in need of care, protection and control. But it is not reasonable to


commit to an approved school children who have done no wrong but are, in the terms of the Bill, refractory. As there are only 30, surely we can deal with them in some other way. But it is 30 every year, and for those children it means a change in their whole future lives. We think of a child being neglected or abandoned and going into a children's home, and then after a time being committed to an approved school. I cannot see that child living a normal life for the rest of its life.
Since this is only a small problem in character but a big problem for the child, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

2.30 a.m.

Miss Pike: As the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said, and as most hon. Members know, she and I tend to look at these problems in the same way and come to the same general conclusions about the things which we are trying to do and the general picture of the problem of the care of children and the prevention of delinquency. But she must not think that when I come to different conclusions from those which she reaches, I do so reluctantly. On the contrary, having looked at the problem and seen the same general picture, I quite often but sincerely come to contrary conclusions to those of her hon. Friends and herself. Possibly the basis of this is that my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friends and I are more prepared to be flexible in our outlook to these problems.
I want to see, as I know she and her hon. Friends want to see, the greatest innovation, training, introduction of new methods, new ideas and new people into this field. We are anxious never to tie down too closely the people working in this field. As far as possible we want to give them the widest scope to find new ways in preventing delinquency.
The Amendment deals with only a small handful of refractory children. None of us like that word, but we do not know an alternative to use. They are children of very difficult traits in behaviour who in one way or another are difficult to control. They have behaviour tendencies which make their life and development difficult. At the same time, they have behaviour tendencies which

often infect and mislead the children around them.
Our problem is how, in the interests of the children, in the interests of the children with whom they associate, and in the interests of society as a whole, we can help them by training, discipline and control to come to a better understanding of their own conduct and of the requirements of society. That is why we would not agree to get rid of this reserve power. It is a reserve power. It is not an automatic power. All these children who come before courts do not automatically go to approved schools. Having looked at the problem, having looked at the child, and having looked at the alternatives—the alternatives are opening up the whole time; I sincerely believe that the number of children in this category will decrease as the Bill comes into operation and new channels are open to us—the court decides what is the best possible solution in the interests of the child.
It is because of the wellbeing of the child that I believe it is absolutely essential to keep this reserve power for the courts in the case of those children who need the type of training and discipline that can be given in approved schools. We all want to see the curriculum in approved schools change and widen. I believe that it will. We all want to see great changes here. At a time when we are doing so much for the welfare of children and so much for the prevention of these difficulties and problems, it would be very unwise to kick away the ladder before we are absolutely certain that we have another and better answer for this small residue of children whose behaviour is extremely difficult.
I do not say that this is the correct answer. I do not say that this is the ultimate answer. I do say that at this moment of time, when we are experimenting so much in all the ways of dealing with this problem, we must keep this reserve power, in the best interests of the children as much as for anything else.

Mrs. Slater: The problem centres round the term "refractory children". In the House tonight are one or two Members who have been teachers. We have all had refractory children in our classes. I shudder to think how we would have reacted if there had been power to send those children to an approved school just


because they were refractory. A child should be sent to an approvad school only if he is more than refractory. I am thinking of a case which has occurred in my local authority. The child is a beautiful girl to look at and is a brilliant child. I have read her case history. Her mother and father were not bad parents but they were mentally unstable. They died because of their mental instability, and right from her early days the child grew up with a chip on her shoulder and the belief in her mind—sub-consciously until she reached adolescence, when she persuaded herself of it—that she would end up that way. She became one of the most refractory children we have ever had to deal with. She went to a grammar school. She was refractory there. She eventually took on quite a responsible job. If somebody, because she was under the care of the local authority, had had the power to send her to an approved school because she was awkward—she was indeed refractory—I shudder to think what would have happened to her in later life. She could have gone either the way of her parents or she could have improved, as she did. Because we did not use that kind of power we saved that girl's future.
I could give many other examples, particularly of boys in our care. In any case, who is prepared to say that a boy should not be a bit stubborn and refractory on occasions? Boys must have a bit of kick in them. It depends on the way in which one considers these matters. People with children in their care might say, "Let us get them out of our care and send them to an approved school." Considering the small number of children involved—about 30, we are told—we should reconsider this matter in the light of new ideas, new methods of handling children and more thought to the atmosphere in which the sort of child we have in mind is living.
Often by moving a child from its environment, the atmosphere in which it is living—perhapsto a new family—much good can be done. This business of children being refractory may be taken too far. How many hon. Members are not a little awkward? Most of us would not be here if we were not a bit stubborn. I hope we will remain that way on certain issues. Children in care may have all sorts of fears and feelings. They

may feel that society has become responsible for them rather than their own parents. That might influence their outlook.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 16.—(OFFENCES COMMITTED BY CHILDREN.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 10, line 35, and the end to insert:
and by inserting after the word 'years' the words 'nor any child or young person in respect of whom a report has been made to the local health authority under section 57 of the Education Act 1944 as amended by the Mental Health Act 1959'".
This Amendment is designed to amend the Clause which deals with the age of criminal responsibility and which, in turn, amends Section 50 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. The Bill proposes to amend that Section 50 by substituting the age of 10 for the age of eight. The Amendment would make a further Amendment; to add a rather complicated definition regarding a
… child or young person in respect of whom a report has been made to the local health authority under section 57 of the Education Act 1944 as amended by the Mental Health Act 1959".
Under the 1944 Act there was a category of child who was called "ineducable" and was excluded from education. It ceased to be the responsibility of the local education authority and it became the responsibility of the public health department. That category was altered by the Mental Health Act, 1959, and the word "ineducable" was dropped. The phrase in the Amendment is, perhaps, the best when referring to the sort of child we have in mind.
2.45 a.m.
It is always a problem in looking at the age of criminal responsibility that one is looking at the chronological age while what really matters is the mental age. It is difficult to have a complete yardstick to show that at a certain age a child ought not to be held responsible for a criminal act, because a child of a certain age may have a wide range of achievement and understanding and a grasp of what is going on. But once we depart from chronological age, which can be proved by birth certificate, to mental age we get into treacherous waters, because intelligence quotients are treacherous things to which to


attach too much importance. They vary according to the mental state of the child and according to his education. In any case it is not possible to know in advance what the intelligence of the child is. One cannot have intelligence quotients taken before court proceedings although normally they would be taken in the course of inquiries afterwards.
This undoubtedly leads to a good deal of injustice. Sometimes in some court it is possible for the education authority with a wink and a nod to advise the clerk of the court that a child is attending a special school for educationally subnormal children but it is not always possible to do so. Nor is it always true that all educationally subnormal children have been ascertained and are attending a special school.
Here, however, is a particular group of children who are very clearly defined, because there is a perfectly clear procedure whereby reports are made to the local health authority and the children become grossly retarded children unsuitable for ordinary education. It seems clear that a child who is so grossly retarded as to be unable to benefit from any education, even at a special school, is too grossly retarded to be held responsible for criminal acts he may perform. It is a piece of gratuitous harshness to go through the farce of bringing such a child before the court and to obtain a label of criminal conviction when he is quite illiterate and incapable of being allowed to be on his own and is not even sufficiently developed to go to a school of any kind.
I have been told that this frequently happens. It is true that a child of this sort may be a serious behaviour problem but there are other means than criminal charges of dealing with him. These children should be dealt with under the Mental Health Act. It is up to the mental health authorities to exert themselves to deal with the problems of these children. The temptation is to say, "Fortunately the child has stolen something. We can get him into court and make a charge against him and we will know that that somebody will do something about seeing that he is placed under proper care and attention." This is the temptation but it is shocking that that should be done. There is no case at all for children of this sort to be

held responsible for actions for which manifestly they are not responsible. Therefore, I suggest in this Amendment that children in this category should be included with the children under the age of 10, because clearly they are under the age of 10 so far as their mental capacity is concerned. They ought to be included and there ought to be an absolute presumption that they are not criminally responsible.
I think this is a useful Amendment because there is a clearly-defined category to which it can be applied; it makes a more rational approach to the problem of responsibility than the present provision does, and I hope it will commend itself to the Government.

Mr. Brooke: I think the House will have a natural sympathy with the general intention of the hon. Member, but, as I shall explain, the matter is rather more complicated than he has indicated—and complicated in a practical sense as well as in theoretical terms.
What the hon. Member is asking is that these children, or young persons, shall be dealt with under the criminal law differently from other people suffering from mental disorder. As regards the generality of the population, the fact that a person has been found to be suffering from a mental disorder does not affect his liability to be charged with a criminal offence. The court before which he is charged has to decide by the same criteria as are applied to all other accused persons whether he is to be regarded as responsible for his act, having regard, of course, to his mental condition it the time when it was committed.
In the case of a child under 14 the court must be satisfied that he was capable of forming a guilty intention. It would be very hard indeed, I should say, for the court to be satisfied in the case of the kind of child which the hon. Member has in mind. The court applying those general criteria, if it finds him guilty, and if it believes him to be suffering from mental disorder of such a nature as warrants his compulsory admission to hospital or reception into guardianship, has power under the Mental Health Act to deal with him accordingly; and there are, of course, other powers.
If I understand the hon. Member aright, he is arguing that children in the category defined in this Amendment would best be dealt with for anti-social behaviour outside the courts altogether. I think everybody would agree that if possible they should be so dealt with. But there are cases in which that would create a real practical problem. Not only that, but it would be, as I explained, out of line with the general policy of the law towards people suffering from mental disorder. That law has been reviewed by Parliament as recently as four years ago, and Parliament has not granted any general exemption from criminal responsibility to those who are suffering from mental disorder. What the law does give in such cases is proper protection against their being unjustly labelled as delinquents. The law also enables the court, in appropriate cases, to take steps to see that the kind of treatment which is needed is secured.
The hon. Member is arguing that all these matters, in the case of children and young persons, can be dealt with administratively by the mental health services. One starts with a great deal of sympathy to that point of view, but I should like to give the House the sort of practical case that might arise. Suppose that one of these subnormal children, living at home with parents, starts to be accused by the neighbours of the kind of behaviour which, if it was proved against the child, would afford grounds for the compulsory removal of the child away from home, whether to a hospital or to some other form of care.
The parents of the child may absolutely deny the accusation that the child is so misbehaving. They might claim that those allegations against their subnormal child were malicious, ill-intentioned and ill-founded. There is then a dispute, which has to be resolved. It is not a question that can be resolved just by the doctors or by the mental welfare officers, by the social services generally or by administrative process. In the end, it is a question which must be resolved by the courts. It is a question for a court to decide.
I entirely agree that the problems presented by these subnormal children and young people can often, and should as

often as possible, be dealt with without recourse to a court, but complete exemption from the jurisdiction of the courts in all circumstances would not in every case be in the best interests of the child and it would leave unresolved the kind of dispute which I have described.
It is, therefore, not with any lack of sympathy to the hon. Member's purpose, but because I sincerely do not believe that the general exemption which he is recommending would be the right way of handling these difficult cases, that I must advise the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. MacColl: It is difficult for the Home Secretary to run the two arguments at the same time. He says, with weight, that if the court knows that the child is grossly retarded, it is most unlikely that it would be able to discharge the obligation, which applies only under the age of 14, of establishing guilty intent. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman says that this is a useful way of determining the facts of what happens and that, therefore, if the parent denies the charge and that such occurrences have taken place, the court can decide.
The court, however, cannot do so. If it decides that the child is incapable of forming a guilty intent, the case has to be dismissed regardless of the facts that are proved, if the case fails on the ground of intent and not of the facts. As to the under-fourteens, therefore, that argument defeats itself, provided that the court knows that the child is of that unhappy kind.
The worry arises when the court is not told. No responsibility rests upon anybody to produce that evidence. If they are not legally advised, it may be extremely difficult for the magistrates to fish around and find out what the facts of the situation are.
3.0 a.m.
Although it may be true that in the case of those over 14 it may be possible to establish the facts, the difficulty then arises, it seems to me, of the child who is grossly retarded and has a mental age of about four or five. We recognise that young children are not equipped and ought not to be charged with criminal offences. If a child is of a mental age of four or five in spite of the fact that the chronological age is 15, it is an abuse


of the courts that they should be used to establish a finding of guilt against him. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 22.(CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ARRESTED AND NOT RELEASED.)

Amendment made: In page 12, line 28, leave out from "released" to "he" in line 29.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 24.—(AGE LIMITS FOR CHILDREN SENT TO SPECIAL RECEPTION CENTRES.)

Amendment made: In page 14, line 28,leave out "child" and insert "person".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 25.—(ATTENDANCE AT COURT OF PARENTS OF CHILD OR YOUNG PERSON BROUGHT BEFORE COURT.)

Mr. Mapp: I beg to move, in page 14, line 43, at the end to insert:
(2) Where a child or young parson who has attained the age of 12 is charged with a criminal offence and such child or young person is in the possession of and under the control of both parents then both parents shall be required to attend the Court before which the case is heard if the Clerk of the Court having regard to the nature of the case deems it desirable.
At this time of the morning and as there has been little victory so far, I am optimistic that the Home Secretary may agree that the Amendment should be accepted.
The Clause states:
Where a child or young parson is charged with any offence or is for any other reason brought before a court, any person who is a parent or guardian of his may be required to attend at the court".
It suggests that both parents should be there so that the court can dispense with one of them, and in practice that is what happens.
There is a little history about this. The Ingleby Committee recommended in rather loose language—I say that carefully, and do not want any wrong impression to be gained from it; the language was not tight—that both parents should in future be in the juvenile court. The Bill carried that provision when it originally went to the other place.
In another place a noble Lady, perhaps largely sharing the approach of this side of the House, proceeded with an argu-

ment which, in effect, is the kind of argument with which those of us who have sat in juvenile courts are very familiar. We were faced with the fact that the Bill spoke of both parents being present, including for trivial cases. But those of us who have sat in juvenile courts know that it is not a question of black or white. Another member of the other place put the case of the long-distance driver when his child is before the courts charged with a trivial offence, such as taking a comic from a shop counter. The case was strongly put for the Government that it would be a hardship on the parent if he were compelled to attend the court and thereby lose a day's wages. That is clearly the case.
The Government spokesman said he would think of some form of words which would take account of the representations. Lord Ingleby said that both parents should normally be there but that having heard the debate, he felt there was a drafting problem and that, broadly speaking, both parents were not required in respect of trivial cases. In Standing Committee, no Amendment on this point was moved, although I did refer to the subject.
I have experience in provincial courts. In the vast majority of cases, in juvenile court, there is no real need for both parents to be present. But consider the magistrates' problems in the other cases. If only the mother is there and they would like to adjourn the case in order that the father can attend as well, they have to take into account whether and when witnesses can be present on a future date. Not least is there the problem of the magistrates themselves, for the same ones should be present when the case is resumed. In the provinces we work on a rot a system.
In the first instance, the Government said that both parents should be there, even for trivial cases. That was a mistake, although unwitting. Now they have changed their minds, but I still think that the father should also be present in a serious case. The problem is how to define the sort of case when both parents should be present. I have explained the difficulties facing the court, having regard to the witnesses, the boy and his parents and the magistrates themselves. Can it be arranged that some responsible person should be able, before the hearing, to


determine whether a case is one where the presence of both parents is desirable?
Clearly, the police are not the people to do that, for they are parties to the case. The magistrate who signs the summons may be a party. The person nearest to the court and the person who has nothing to do with the merits of the case and who most understands his bench is the clerk of the court. He knows the general attitude of the magistrates and he is in a position to obtain information about the family from the various agencies available to him. He would be able to make it clear in appropriate cases that the presence of both parents was required.
It is my experience, an experience shared by other magistrates, that it is a waste of time having both parents present for trivial cases, but in the one case in a dozen when it does matter, the difficulties of getting both parents in court are such that the case is heard with only the mother there, and the man who ought to be practising the leadership of the family escapes his responsibilities and criticisms.
I hope that the Government will accept this happy medium between their original approach of having both parents present for even trivial cases, which went too far one way, and their second thoughts in another place which went to far in the other direction and that whether the circumstances justify the presence of both parents will be decided by the only person we can allow to decide—the clerk of the court.

Miss Pike: I am sorry that at this late hour I should have to disappoint the hon. Member's optimism. He has given great thought to this problem. He discussed it in Committee when he gave notice that he would try to bring forward some Amendment of this nature. It is a problem which has been thought over very carefully. We all want to do what he is trying to do—to ensure not only that a parent, but that the right parent is in court when the case is being tried. The method the hon. Member has suggested is inappropriate and I hope that I shall be able to convince him that there is no practical need for it. I hope that I shall also be able to convince him that we have got it

about right. As he said, in the first place we went too far one way.
The effect of his Amendment would be to confer on the clerk of the court in a limited class of cases a discretion which would be independent of and concurrent with a similar discretion given to the court in subsection (1). We believe that to be inappropriate. As the hon. Member with his very wide experience of these matters knows, justices usually delegate to the clerk the preparation of summonses and warrants for their signature.
3.15 a.m.
We see no reason why, if the justices think fit, the clerks, with their wide experience, and their knowledge of the facts of the case, should not indicate in the summons which parents should attend. Then, having given advice to the court, the court could sign the summons and the purpose which the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve would be achieved by a more appropriate method. The hon. Gentleman is looking a little bewildered. I hope that I have explained this adequately.

Mr. Mapp: I was getting a bit mixed up because at the point of signing a summons it is not the duty of a magistrate to make any inquiries about the merits of the case. He may be called on later to deal with that case in court. The hon. Lady, by inference, is saying that at the point of issuing the summons the magistrate could, by inference, ask some questions and, by inference, the clerk would summon one or both of the parents. If that is the hon. Lady's argument, I am not with her.

Miss Pike: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has got me right. I am not saying that at this stage the magistrate should make any judgment. I was trying to say that the clerk, with his knowledge of the case, in preparing the summons, could include a requirement that one or other of the parents should attend the court. In this way I believe that we would achieve the practical end which the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve without the improper powers which this Amendment would give to the justices' clerk. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that the point made by him has been met.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Lady will remember that this point raised a good deal of discussion in Committee upstairs, and in the other place, and that it gave rise to a good deal of disagreement. I started with the point of view that this campaign to get parents into court was over-emphasised. I considered that it was possible to get parents into court if one was prepared to be tough enough, but my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) pulled me up sharply and said that this was very much a London point of view, because where one has a court which sits weekly one can talk about adjournments and remands and holding children in custody until the parents appear, but that this is not practical in courts which meet only occasionally and which work a rot a which does not provide—as I think it should—for continuity of the panel to listen to cases which have been remanded.
The difficulty about a straightforward direction that parents should always come is that it is difficult, without inquiry, to discover whether the parents really are the parents; whether they are married; whether the child is the child of both parents; whether the father is in fact a hopeless mental case; whether he is an invalid who cannot walk; and all the other complexities that might arise. Without a certain amount of investigation it is difficult to decide these things, and of course it is extremely undesirable for the magistrate who is to hear the case to have preliminary inquiries into the family life of the boy before the case has been heard. Nothing could be more prejudicial to a fair hearing than to be told that the father of the boy is in prison. To be told that the boy comes from a family of criminals could make one sceptical of the boy's story, and I therefore think it is undesirable that the magistrate should probe too much into the case before hearing it.
Where the court meets frequently it would be possible to say that in any case which is serious there should be a remand for inquiries, and there might be a standing order for the probation officers, when they got in touch with the parents, to indicate to them quite clearly that they should attend court. My hon. Friend pointed out that that was all very well for a court that met frequently, but that it could not be done when a court did

not have regular meetings for remand cases.
The Amendment seems to offer the best solution to the problem. It is necessary that somebody should look at the case beforehand, and there is no harm in the clerk's looking into the matter beforehand. He sees various statements before the hearing, and he could easily go through the cases and, with his knowledge, pick out those in which the parents should be present. I am disappointed that the hon. Lady has not been able to offer my hon. Friend a little more hope in this matter I am sorry that the matter has been raised at this late hour, because it is a useful and constructive attempt to meet the problem, and I would have liked there to be a more detailed examination of it. That would have been possible if we had been dealing with it at a more civilised hour, but who wants to talk about adjournments of courts when all that we are thinking of is the Adjournment of the House?

Amendment negatived.

Clause 36.—(RESTRICTION ON PERSONS UNDER 16 TAKING PART IN PUBLIC PERFORMANCES, ETC.)

Mr. F. P. Bishop: I beg to move, in page 19, line 15. to leave out "three" and to insert "six".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): With this Amendment we can discuss the Amendments in page 19, line 16, leave out "another performance" and insert "other performances", and in line 17, leave out "one day" and insert "three days".

Mr. Bishop: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The three Amendments go together, and they have the very simple and modest object of providing a little more flexibility in the rules governing performances by children without licence. As the Bill stands, two performances are permitted without licences in any period of three months. The effect of the Amendments would be to permit up to four performances in a period of six months. In other words, there would be no increase in the number of permitted performances over a period of six months, but they could be grouped more closely in a series not exceeding four.
The Amendments would be very much to the convenience of a good many


people, not excluding local authorities which have the task of issuing licences. I am not here thinking so much of professional performances, which perhaps would hardly be affected, but much more of the sort of competitions which are so popular now on radio and television, and in which young people take part. They often run through several heats, leading up to a final, in which the candidates who are successful in the first heat, or the first two or three heats, are required to appear again in a week's time to see if they can get further.
In cases like this the young people concerned may come from a number of different local authorities, and the Bill provides that it is the local authority in whose area a young person lives which has to issue the licence. It is impossible for the organiser of a competition to know which young people will get through the first two heats, and therefore for which of them licences will ultimately become necessary under the Bill. He will have the alternative either of applying for licences for all the candidates at the beginning, therefore putting a lot of people to a lot of trouble which later proves to be unnecessary, or waiting to see who gets through the rounds and applying to the authorities concerned, with an altogether inadequate time in which to do so.
That is the whole purpose of these Amendments. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will feel able to accept them, and I hope he will not be less disposed to accept them because I do not make a very long speech in moving them.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: Having heard the brief arguments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop), I would, similarly very briefly, support him in his effort to gain more flexibility for this Clause. I would agree with him particularly that it would be to the administrative convenience of the local authority that it should not be legally required to issue licences for what is after all the world of the amateur performer.
I should like quickly to fill into the argument some things the hon. Gentleman opposite did not say. As he was speaking there came to my mind the

position, for example, of schoolchildren acting in a school play which might be running for three or four nights, perhaps even a week, or the situation of a school orchestra performing or wanting to perform on a number of occasions during a week. They might want to run a festival week or something of that kind. I am not quite clear who the bodies are who have children performing without a licence,
a body of persons approved for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State",
but it seems to me that a junior repertory society sponsored by a private voluntary organisation might be sponsoring dramatic performances or concerts by young people, and it would be for the convenience of such an organisation and of the local authority if more flexibility were given to the Clause.
Since I have some little knowledge of the entertainment industry, in which I worked prior coming to this House, I know that at Bank Holidays, at Christmas, Easter or Whitsuntide, a choir, for example, run by a voluntary organisation or local authority or school may be required to perform on a number of occasions during the holiday period.
It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is making a very reasonable and modest request which would help the children and those sponsoring these performances and the local authorities, who would otherwise have to issue licences. It gives me pleasure to support the Amendment.

Mr. Brooke: As I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) my impression was confirmed that he was not seeking a larger number of unlicensed performances during the course of the year but only a more flexible distribution of them. He was arguing that whereas in the Bill as it stands there can only be two in three months there might be occasions when it would be much more convenient if a child could appear unlicensed in up to four performances in the period on the understanding that then he would have exhausted his quota, so to speak, for the remainder of the six months' period. I am sure that we must stand by the general purpose of the Clause, but I see no valid objection to giving it an extra flexibility in the way in which my hon. Friend suggests. If I have


sensed the atmosphere aright, there seems to be a pleasant unanimity on both sides of the House, and I am willing to advise the House to accept the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 16, leave out "another performance" and insert "other performances".

In line 17, leave out "one day" and insert "three days".—[Mr. Bishop.]

3.30 a.m.

Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move, in page 19, line 23, to leave out from "place" to the end of line 26.
The Amendment would delete the words—
and no payment in respect of the child's taking part in the performance is made, whether to him or to any other person, except for defraying expenses.
Hon. Members must first observe that whereas subsection (1) deals strictly with commercial entertainment, with the world of the professional, subsection (3) deals with the world of the amateur and of children performing for schools, local authorities and other bodies. One thing which struck me before I came into the House, when I was at the same time an employer of professional musicians and also a sponsor and assistant in voluntary activities of the type envisaged in the subsection, is that, while there is the world of the professional and the world of the amateur, at times the two come together, and at such times there is a tendency to friction and for the amateur to feel frustrated in a position not of his own choosing.
I have moved the Amendment in the interests of the professional musician at a time when the prospects of employment in live music have been deteriorating for some time, but also because it would be some measure of assistance and encouragement to children who are performing as musicians or dramatists.
The background to the Amendment is that subsection (3) allows children under 16 to take part in a public performance, the nature of which is laid down in subsection (2), without a licence in clearly defined circumstances. Such occasional performances without a licence are, as the Clause stands, possible only when

they are under arrangements by a school or
the local authority in whose area the performance takes place
or a body approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State.
In the West Riding of Yorkshire, from which I come, there is a tradition of brass and military bands. For example, in my own home town we have a military band which is not sponsored by a local authority. It is a private voluntary organisation in which a large number of children and young people are trained to play instruments. In some cases the band owns the instruments. In some cases the young people own them. I am not clear whether this subsection deals with such organisations. Perhaps the Home Secretary will be able to clear this up.
The Amendment would remove the restriction that no payment may be made in respect of performances by children except in so far as expenses can be defrayed. It must be recognised that the performances envisaged in this subsection, in view of the restriction on the sponsoring bodies, are largely concerned with school concerts and plays, with the activities of groups of young people in youth orchestras, and with the activities of young people in dramatic performances and choirs organised by local authorities. This is the world of the amateur performance.
Where, as has happened occasionally in the past and as will inevitably happen again, the world of the amateur and that of the professional meet—where, for example, an amateur choir of young children or people under 16, organised by a school or a local authority, is approached by commercial interests—for example, by a television company—a situation then arises which perhaps is not envisaged by the Clause. The two worlds—that of the amateur and that of the professional—have met.
It should be stressed at this stage that we are dealing with responsible organising bodies which are sponsoring this type of concert or dramatic performance. We are dealing with school authorities, with local authorities, and with bodies such as the Home Secretary would find responsible and fit to organise the activities of children without licence. It is logical


that such people as responsible people are not likely to abuse any situation in which they find themselves or, indeed, to abuse the services of the children whom they are organising.
Hon. Members will know that school orchestras, particularly youth orchestras, or drama groups under the aegis of local authorities are often short of money. It is the perennial cry that they have not the money with which to buy new instruments. Does the Home Secretary think that it is reasonable to prevent such voluntary organisations from benefiting in some measure from any contacts or approaches that they might have from commercial interests? We all know the difficulty that such organisations often have in purchasing musical instruments, particularly as musical instruments are subject to an iniquitous Purchase Tax burden. We know the difficulty they often have of providing rehearsal rooms. The children sometimes provide their own musical instruments. I can think of a case in point in which a young person who lives quite near to me and plays in a voluntary organisation purchased his own instrument by working at weekends.
One of the weaknesses of the Clause is the limit it imposes by saying that a body sponsoring the performances of children can ask only for sufficient money to defray expenses. Expenses for what? Will travelling expenses for taking children to and from a performance be allowable? What about props and music? When one considers the question of props, rehearsal rooms, instruments, music, clothing, and so on, one appreciates how much expenses can amount to.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that when an organisation sponsoring the activities of children is approached by commercial interests it should have the opportunity of getting more than an amount to defray its expenses. If a television company proposed that a youth symphony orchestra should take part in a television programme I can appreciate the difficulties and I am not suggesting that the present situation should be drastically altered. It would mean that no difficulty would be encountered if commercial interests or a television company wanted children to give a performance.
The Amendment does not say that a payment must be made. We may assume that the types of activities covered by the Clause are generally those where children receive no payment. The Amendment would merely allow an organisation to benefit from a temporary move on the part of its orchestra, band or other activity in to the commercial world. Considering the financial position of many voluntary organisations, it is not unreasonable that they should be able to benefit if commercial interests are willing to use their abilities.
It could be argued that if the question of payment were involved licences could be obtained from the local authority. Since we are not dealing with schools, local authorities and other responsible bodies but just the occasional performance, the Amendment opens no flood gates to abuse, but might give assistance to organisations which are at present hard pushed financially and which need funds to keep going.

3.45 a.m.

Miss Bacon: I hope that the right hon. Member will look favourably on the Amendment, for although, at first sight, it might appear reactionary that we should ask to delete that part of the Clause which prohibits the payment of young performers, the Amendment is desired by the Musicians' Union, which would be the last body to exploit young performers.
My hon. Friend mentioned one example; that of a youth orchestra which might play at the Festival Hall. A television company—perhaps one of the commercial ones—might ask to relay the performance. This rich company would then be prohibited from making a donation to the youth orchestra. That is one example, but many could be given.
These bodies are not very wealthy. The money could be given as block payments to the youth orchestra. As my hon. Friend says, even though we would not like individual performers to be paid, some of them have heavy expenses in buying their own instruments and we do not think that in those cases they should be prohibited from receiving payment of some kind. I am sure that the Musicians' Union would not


wish to make any Amendment to the Bill which would mean more exploitation of child performers in any way.

Mr. Brooke: The Amendment has come along not only at an early hour in the morning, but at a late stage in the Bill. I make no complaint about that, but I confess that when I saw it on the Notice Paper I was somewhat puzzled about its purpose. I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) was not wishing lightly to let in the professional performer into these unlicensed performances. I appreciate now that his purpose is to enable the body putting on the performance, rather than the individual child performer, to receive some payment if a television company desired to make some payment.
I think that the Clause is all right as it stands and I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment. If the hon. Member looks at the Amendment carefully he will see that it would open some doors which I do not think it is his intention to open. I should like the House to know that the form of exemption in subsection (3) was discussed by us with the various interested organisations, including the Standing Conference of National Voluntary Youth Organisations, which seemed to be the most representative body with which we could discuss it, and there has been no suggestion from any of these quarters that it would be unsatisfactory.
If the Amendment were to be written into the Bill it would open the door to a professional performer finding that, subject to local authority approval of the body concerned, he could obtain engagements which might be under working conditions below the standards expected under a licence. There would also be a risk, if the Amendment were made, that amateur child performers would again become liable to exploitation, which the Bateson Committee criticised and which we are seeking by the Clause to exclude.
According to advice given to me, the subsection is so drafted as to prevent any payment that might be a form of wages paid either to the child or to somebody else, for example his parents. The words "or to any other person" are put in with the obvious intention of stopping a loophole whereby payment

might be made indirectly to the child through some other person. According to my reading of the Clause, these payments, with which the subsection is concerned, are simply payments in respect of the child giving a performance. If, for example, a trust which was sponsoring a youth orchestra wished the orchestra or some particular occasion to appear on television a payment made to the trust would not be such a payment as is prevented by the Clause. It would not be a payment in respect of the child's taking part in the performance. That is how I read it.

Mr. O'Malley: Am I right in understanding that the Home Secretary is saying that if, for example, a youth orchestra takes part in a television broadcast a donation by the commercial interest, the television company, to the funds of that youth orchestra would not be prevented under this Clause as drafted?

Mr. Brooke: That is how I understand it, provided the payment is in no way wages or fee to the children concerned and that it would in no way reach the children, but that it is for the trust or responsible body running the orchestra. It would need to be a responsible body, because the local authority would not otherwise approve it for this purpose. As the House knows, I have no authority to give an interpretation of a Section in an Act; only the courts can do that.
This matter has come up at a late stage, and I confess that until I heard the hon. Member speak I was not clear as to the precise purpose at which this was aimed. He asked me what sort of performances would be covered here, and I certainly can assure him that the power of the local authorities to approve bodies of persons for the purposes of this subsection is a power at large. It is not limited in any way. The local authority can do as it thinks fit.
I am certainly not hostile to what the hon. Member has in mind, but this is the final stage of the Bill and I am bound to advise him that his words, if embodied in the Bill, would go too far and would open loopholes to practices which the Bateson Committee was desirous of stopping. In those circumstances, I must advise the House not to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Miss Bacon: I beg to move, in page 19, line 42, at the end to insert:
(5) Regulations made under the foregoing subsection may provide for the supervision by suitable persons of the children and prescribe the maximum number of children to be supervised by any one person.
Under this subsection the Home Secretary is required to make regulations, and we would like him to include in the regulations some conditions concerning the matrons who take charge of the children when they are on tour. We would have liked these matrons to be licensed either by a central authority or by the local authority. But at any rate, we would like the right hon. Gentleman to include in his regulations conditions for the supervision of the children by suitable people—that is, the matrons—and for prescribing the maximum number of children who may be supervised by any one matron. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give some indication, too, as to the kind of people who should be in charge of these children and whether or not they would be licensed.
We regret that part of this Clause is subject to regulations. We do not know what those regulations are, but I understood in Committee that we shall be able to discuss the regulations when they are laid. However, we do not want the right hon. Gentleman to lose sight of this very important point concerning the matrons who will be in charge of the children.

Mr. Brooke: Equally briefly, I give the hon. Lady the assurance that when I make the regulations, I will bear in mind what she has said. I cannot tell exactly what form the regulations will take, but I have taken note of the point which she has made and it will be my desire to produce regulations that are generally acceptable.
I hope, however, that the hon. Lady will not press me to include the Amendment in the Bill, because I assure her that it appears to be unnecessary. Subsection (5) of the Clause already confers on the Secretary of State a sufficient power to make regulations on matters relating to supervision. It is important that there should be adequate arrangements for supervision and, as the hon. Lady, no doubt, knows, the existing regulations—the Employment of Children in Entertainments Rules, 1933, as amended—provide for a licence to be issued subject, among other things, to a

condition prohibiting the employment of a child, if not living with his parents, unless he is in the care of a matron, governess or other fit person approved by the local education authority, who shall be responsible for his welfare, for accompanying him to and from the place of entertainment, and so on.
This is not, therefore, a matter which has been overlooked in the past, and under the existing regulations the person has to be approved by the local education authority. I will not say that we shall do it exactly the same next time, because we will do it in the light of all our experience, but I will bear in mind the general purpose which the hon. Lady has in mind. I am not sure whether it would be right to prescribe the maximum number of children to be supervised by any one person, but we will certainly go into it all and do the best we can.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 47.—(ABSENCE OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF CHILD RECEIVED INTO CARE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY.)

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 25, line 16, at the end to insert:
(2) The power of a local authority under paragraph (b) of section 2(1) of the Children Act 1948 to resolve that all rights and powers of a parent or guardian shall vest in them may be exercised, as well as in the cases mentioned in that paragraph, in any case where it appears to them—

(a) that the parent or guardian suffers from a mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1959 or the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960) which renders him unfit to have the care of the child; or
(b) that the parent or guardian has so persistently failed without reasonable cause to discharge the obligations of a parent or guardian as to be unfit to have the care of the child;
and the power of the court or sheriff, under subsection (3) of that section, to order that the resolution shall not lapse may also be exercised if the court or sheriff is satisfied that the person who objected to the resolution is unfit to have the care of the child by reason of his persistent failure to discharge the obligations of a parent or guardian.
This Amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). Its purpose is to extend in certain respects the grounds on which a local authority may assume parental rights over a child whom it has received into care under Section 1 of the


1948 Act. The hon. Member moved an Amendment in Standing Committee that had the same object, but I had to advise the Committee that it was technically imperfect. I hope that we have now got it technically perfect.
I will be pleased, if the House wishes, to explain the precise effect of the Amendment, but it may be that the hon. Member and the House will accept my assurance that it does what he was anxious to do, and what he persuaded me should be done when we discussed the matter in Standing Committee.

Mr. MacColl: I welcome the Amendment and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having gone to some pains to get an Amendment which meets an important point which has been raised by children's committees in various parts of the country. It will strengthen their power to protect children from the misfortune of having parents who either are mentally unstable or fail to take any reasonable interest in the children. Therefore, I hope very much that the Amendment will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52.—(ARREST IN ONE PART OF BRITISH ISLANDS OF CHILDREN OR YOUNG PERSONS ESCAPING IN OTHER PART.)

4.0 a.m.

Amendment made: In page 27, line 25, leave out "Guernsey" and insert:
any other part of the Channel Islands".—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 63.— [CITATION, CONSTRUCTION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)

Amendment made: In page 31, line 37, after "25", insert "and section 26".—[Mr. Brooke.]

Schedule 2.—(CONSTITUTION OF JUVENILE COURTS.)

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 36, line 36, after "committee", to insert:
or by any juvenile court panel concerned".
This, again, is an Amendment which I am happy to move to meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) in Committee. I am rather inclined to think that I was right in Committee in saying that no such Amendment is strictly needed, because I believe that these juvenile court panels would in any case have opportunity to express their views when there is a question of

the formation of a combined juvenile court panel for two or more petty sessions areas.
But I could see that the hon. Gentleman attached considerable importance to the right of the juvenile court panel concerned to have statutory authority for putting its views forward in the appropriate quarter, and this may perhaps clarify the position still further. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman will agree that it puts it beyond doubt, and I hope that he will receive it with the same kind of welcome as he gave to a recent Amendment.

Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman rather gave the impression that he is proposing to insert these words only to try to sweeten me a little. I do not think that that is quite correct. No doubt in a normal area where proposals for combining the juvenile courts are being discussed, as a matter of courtesy the panel would be consulted. But it seemed to me—and I think the words show it—that the responsibility rested with the magistrates' courts committee.
The juvenile court panel and the magistrates' courts committee are not the same and do not necessarily have very cordial relations with each other. They may, but in some cases they do not. They are very often of different generations for one thing. Therefore, I think it is important to make quite certain that the proposal, which essentially affects the juvenile court panel, should be considered by it and not just by the magistrates' courts committee.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has met the point, because I think that it will remove any misgivings and will help towards the smooth working of this proposal. I think that most people will recognise that in most areas it may well be desirable to have combined courts, and this will make it easier to achieve that, and for that reason I welcome the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Amendments made: In page 39, line 32, at end insert:
(2) In section 67(2), after the words "five foregoing sections" there shall be inserted the words "or subsection (8) of section 84 of this Act.

In page 40, line 40, leave out "Guernsey" and insert:
any other part of the Channel Islands".

In page 41, line 38, leave out "Guernsey" and insert:
any other part of the Channel Islands".—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 43, line 34, at the end to insert:
and after the words 'sections 62 to 66' there shall be inserted the words 'or subsection (8) of section 84' ".
This is slightly more than a drafting Amendment, but I think that it is quite non-controversial. Section 67(2) of the principal Act enables a court to make an interim order for detention for example, in a remand home, where an application is made under one or other of the preceding five sections. The Amendment would extend that power to enable an interim order to be made where the application is under the new subsection (8) of Section 84. The new subsection (8), as the House will recall, is put in by subsection (2) of Clause 7 of this Bill.
I assure the House that there is nothing controversial, though there may be something slightly technical, about this matter.

Mr. MacColl: I believe that I am right in thinking that this mainly arises from the extension of powers under Section 84 in dealing with the child. It is obviously desirable that there should be full opportunity to make interim orders for further reports before a final decision is taken. It is no longer just a question of sending a child either home or to a school, but of considering alternatives which are very welcome. It is desirable to place the resources of the remand home at the disposal of the court.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Amendments made: In page 45, line 47. column 3, at end insert:
In section 26, in subsection (1), the words 'or in default of payment of such a fine'.

In page 46, leave out lines 11 to 13.

In page 47, leave out lines 12 to 14.

In page 48, line 3, column 3, at end insert
In section 3, subsections (2) and (3)".—[Mr. Brooke.]

4.7 a.m.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House will forgive me if I keep my remarks brief on the Third Reading of this important Bill. I am grateful to both sides of the House for the way in which it has been received and welcomed. I want to express my appreciation of the helpfulness of everyone who served on the Standing Committee, particularly the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon)—though we had our disagreements. She was, I know, wishing throughout to be constructive.
Most of all, I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Joint Under Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State took on a heavy task when, almost without notice and without previous experience of the Home Office, she joined the Standing Committee. I think that we all recognised the grasp she obtained of the Bill in a very short time.
Far and away the most important Clause is Clause I. This is the Clause for which the local authorities generally have been waiting, and though I do not want to be over-optimistic about what it will do until we see the results, unless our expectations are gravely disappointed it should enable a large number of families to be kept together who would otherwise be broken up, with consequential results in juvenile delinquency and unhappiness.
I want to tell the House that my present intention is to bring Clause 1 into force on 1st October. That will give the local authorities the period of the recess months to make their preparations. I intend to follow very closely the way in which the Clause works. I shall be able to do so both through the reports I shall be seeking from local authorities and through the direct contact my inspectors have with the children's departments. My own belief is that almost without exception the local authorities will wish to exercise these new powers vigorously.
As to the remainder of the Bill; the rest of Part I and Part III contain various improvements of present provisions for the treatment of delinquent and deprived children. I think that these will make


an addition to the efficient and humane administration of this branch of the law. My hope is that some of these Clauses, which simply extend discretionary powers to local authorities, can be brought in force soon along with Clause 1. The operation of others may have to wait a short while longer until my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has revised the rules of procedure for juvenile courts in the light of the Bill; but I have no reason to think that it will be necessary to wait many months beyond the time when Clause 1 comes into operation for those other Clauses to be brought into operation, too.
Part II is rather different from the rest. It takes us into a different sphere and it is a testimony to the good job which the Government have done in this respect that, after many years of study, we managed to put the principal recommendations of the Bateson Report into legislative form in such a way that there has been astonishingly little criticism. I confess that I thought that there might be many Amendments to these provisions, perhaps from both sides of the House. But it appears that all the work which has been done on the subject since the Bateson Report was published has brought all concerned into almost unanimous agreement as to the way in which the conditions of employment of juveniles should be regularised, particularly in the entertainment world.
I know that its principal function is to give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself the power and the duty to make regulations. Our aim will be to ensure reasonable uniformity in the exercise of their discretion by local authorities, while permitting a degree of adaptation to local circumstances.
The regulations will, of course, have to be framed in consultation with the local authority associations and with the many other interests involved and we shall have to give due notice of the introduction of the new provisions so that existing arrangements are not disrupted at short notice. As the House may know, I have already had to give a somewhat unusual undertaking not to bring Part II of the Bill into force at least before the end of the next pantomime season. It may be some time be-

fore we can bring it into operation, but I can assure the House that there will be no avoidable delay.
All of us who have had any part in carrying the Bill through the House can congratulate ourselves on having done a valuable piece of work for the children. Now we shall all wait and see how it turns out and how local authorities exercise their discretion. I, for my part, will be ready to help them in every possible way.

4.14 a.m.

Miss Bacon: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the detailed account he has given of the way in which the Bill will be brought into operation. I am sure that we are all pleased to note the speed with which he is to get on with the job of bringing the Bill to fruition.
I should like to join with him in paying tribute to the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary for the way in which she stepped right into the deep end with the Bill and, within almost a few days of becoming Under-Secretary, being in the Committee stage of the Bill. I do not find that very surprising, because she and I live only a mile apart and we come from a tough part of the country, where we are accustomed to doing things of that description.
I thank my hon. Friends who, not only on Report, but in Committee, worked so hard on the Bill. I thank, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for all the help that he gave in the drafting of the Amendments. I do not think that it is generally realised how much at a disadvantage hon. Members of the Opposition are in dealing with a very long and technical Bill of this kind because, unlike the Government, we have not the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen, civil servants, and so on. My hon. Friend has done a great job of work in drafting the Amendments in an admirable way, and I am sure that they could not have been improved on by the Parliamentary draftsmen.
It is a pity that we have had to take the concluding stages of this important Bill at such a late hour. We could have been awkward—perhaps I should say refractory—and held up the Bill, but we know that local authorities and people who are working in the field are waiting


for the Bill. We tabled many Amendments, but, as the right hon. Gentleman recognised, we tried to be constructive.
During the Committee and Report stages of the Bill we had discussions about many comparatively small but important parts of the Bill, and I think that at times we were in danger of forgetting the main purpose of the Bill which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is outlined in Clause 1. The main purpose is to lay on local authorities the important duty of taking preventive action in the home.
We support the Bill. We have criticised only one or two aspects of it, and our aim has been to improve it. It is now over to the local authorities, and the success of this Bill will depend on four or five things. First, it will depend on how local authorities tackle this very important job. Secondly—and perhaps the most difficult one—it will depend on the social workers and on the speed with which more social workers are trained because we shall need many more social workers to carry out this task. Thirdly, it will depend on the voluntary bodies, the way in which they co-operate with the local authorities, and the way in which the local authorities cope with the important job of co-ordination. Fourthly, the success of the Bill will depend on the public.
During the passage of the Bill I have criticised the system of various things. When one does that, one is sometimes thought to be criticising the people who work with that system. I want to make it quite clear that where I have criticised the system, I have not in any way made any reflections on the devoted and dedicated people who are working with it—the probation officers, the child care officers, the approved school teachers, and so on. They are doing an excellent job of work in what is admitted to be the most difficult part of the social sphere.
There are many new things in the Bill—the raising of the age of criminal responsibility is only one—but now it is over to the local authorities, to the social workers, to the voluntary bodies, and, above all, to the public. We are

concerned with halting juvenile delinquency, and the main purpose of the Bill is to see that it is nipped in the bud; that the local authorities take action in the homes of those children who, it is thought, might come into care or into the courts.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to keep the children out of the courts, and to keep them, as far as possible, out of the care of local authorities, and so to encourage a happy state of affairs in the homes that the children remain where all children ought to remain—in their own homes, with their own parents and families.

4.20 a.m.

Mr. Mapp: At this late hour no one wants to detain the House after it has spent a long time on a matter like this. I am glad about the Bill, and about what it aims to do, but before I came here I was used to the idea of the board room or middle level management throwing ideas up in the air and letting the people in the field or on the factory floor do the job.
It is all very well for us to pass the Bill, but what about the supply of social workers? In Committee, in reply to a question I raised, the Joint Under-Secretary said:
I assure him that the training of case workers is provided for already in section 45 of the Children Act, 1948. We must impress upon local authorities the importance of making certain that we get the people. Having got them we cam make adequate arrangements for their training."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 2nd April, 1963; c. 114.]
That is not so obvious a process to me, of getting the wherewithal to do the job. I certainly hope that the Home Office, and particularly the Minister, will look at this aspect of the question.
It is no good our writing laws in this House and setting up a complicated series of legislative Measures without making provision for the implements to carry them out. Let us make sure that the case workers are trained and come forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

MISS G. M. LINDELL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

4.22 a.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: This case concerns a lady of British birth, Miss G. M. Lindell, who was domiciled in France for some years and who was detained during the war in concentration camps by the Germans. Among the camps in which she was incarcerated was the notorious Ravensbruck, and she suffered cruelly on that account. The case also concerns the very dilatory manner in which the Foreign Office has conducted negotiations in respect of indemnity or compensation for all British nationals detained in concentration camps who have not been covered by the Federal compensation law of 1953 for victims of Nazi persecution.
A number of prisoners-of-war—merchant seamen and others—were moved to concentration camps quite illegally, and it is my view—and, I believe, the view of the Foreign Office—that they should be compensated for what they have suffered. I am criticising my hon. Friend's Department, although not him personally, for the very slow manner in which these negotiations have been conducted.
It is a fact that all the other Allied Powers, especially France and Belgium, have concluded agreements with the Federal German Government which have enabled them to compensate people who were detained in these camps. They included Resistance workers, of whom Miss Lindell was one at the time of her arrest by the Gestapo in 1943.
I realise, as my hon. Friend has told me more than once, that the negotiations which his Department has carried out with the Federal German Government must be of a rather delicate character. I do not wish to say anything to exacerbate feelings or arouse passions in regard to the conduct of the Germans in concentration camps during the war, but I wish to point out that the Foreign Office is worthy of cricitism on account of its conduct in this matter. I first raised the matter with the Foreign Office in the case of Miss Lindell as long ago as 1954, a year after the

Federal German Government had passed their compensation law for the victims of Nazi persecution.
That law was not sufficiently complete, as far as some British nationals were concerned, and on 17th November, 1955, after Miss Lindell had made a claim before the German courts in respect of what she had suffered in the concentration camp, Mr. Anthony Nutting, who was then Minister of State, wrote to me, and said that this law, which was passed in 1953, the Federal compensation law,
fell short in some respects of the requirements of the Convention, and the Germans are at present engaged upon an amending law to remedy this.
That, naturally, led me to suppose that the Foreign Office would get something done about this case, which, indeed, was a worthy one, because, after all, all these British nationals were in some way or another patriots, and all of them suffered, whether they were merchant seamen, prisoners of war, or Resistance workers.
I raised the matter again, having heard very little about it for a year, with Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker, who was then under-Secretary of State—in my hon. Friend's present office—and he said:
We have … proposed to the Federal Government that a Working Group be set up to see how deficiencies in the legislation can be overcome, and we intend to raise the problem of compensation for Allied nationals in any discussions which take place.
I again raised it about a month later with my noble Friend the Member for Pentlands (Lord John Hope), who had then taken the place of Mr. Dodds-Parker; at any rate, he was Under-Secretary. He said that if the proposal to set up a working party were accepted he very much hoped
to obtain some compensation for Miss Lindell, and for some other similar cases which are not provided for under existing German legislation.
What I want an explanation of tonight is what was the Foreign Office doing after that period? In 1960, the French Government reached the agreement under which they were able to pass a decree allotting about £40 million in compensation to people who included Resistance workers and other nationals.
I should just say one or two other things about the case of Miss Lindell


herself, because as she is a British subject and has always retained her British passport she can make no claim for indemnity against the decree which the French Government passed in 1961. She has a pension under a reciprocal arrangement with the French Government. As she is domiciled in France she has been in receipt of a pension from the French Government, but that is quite irrelevant, for this is a case where there is a moral obligation and a legal obligation upon the Foreign Office to make a settlement as quickly as possible on behalf of these British nationals.
Since Miss Lindell cannot claim a French indemnity from the Germans I suggest there is a very strong case indeed for criticising the Foreign Office for not having got on this job much more quickly. She suffered in the concentration camps from 1943 to 1945, when she was released with a number of other British subjects. Although some of those people may be in fairly good circumstances, some of them have suffered in health, and time is certainly not on their side. All of them were illegally detained.
My reason for asking my hon. Friend to answer this Adjournment debate tonight is the extraordinary length of time which the Foreign Office has taken to deal with this matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to explain what has happened since the last letter I received from the Foreign Office and his former colleague in 1956, and of what has been done up to the present time. I know he is undertaking delicate and difficult negotiations, but I should like to know how he is getting on with them, because I feel that this really is a deserving case, and one in which people really have received very inadequate treatment from the Foreign Office and who deserve indemnity or compensation for the indignities which they suffered. This is not entirely a question of money. It is also a question of loss of prestige and dignity as a result of being placed in these concentration camps.
For all those reasons I very much hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give an account of what has happened in the past and to make amends by saying that in future he will do everything he can to reach a satisfactory settlement

with the Federal German Government for these British nationals.

4.31 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Smithers): The great interest which my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has taken in this matter is well known to the House, and I do not think that there is anybody who does not sympathise with those who suffered under the Nazi persecution. My hon. Friend has raised a number of matters and has said that he thinks that the Foreign Office has been dilatory. He expressed the hope that it will be possible to arrive at satisfactory agreements with the Federal German Government.
As we are debating the matter in public, I think that the best way for me to answer what my hon. Friend said is to try to describe the position as it has developed and as it is now in outline so that, broadly speaking, it may be understood and hon. Members may see why it has taken some time to develop in this way.
First, let me say that the position is quite without precedent. At the end of the war there were literally thousands of claims against the German Government for matters arising during the war. They arose in the context of reparations, but as there was no peace treaty, for reasons which were no fault either of the German or of the British Government, nothing could be done in the context of reparations. On the other hand, the Federal German Government were in control of only a part of the former German Reich, and in the absence of a peace treaty it would have been quite unreasonable to expect the Federal Government to assume the whole of the responsibility for German reparations.
It was in those circumstances that the Bonn Conventions were negotiated and eventually came into force in 1955. The Conventions conferred full internal and external authority upon the German Federal Government, and they were freely negotiated by the United States, the United Kingdom and France. Chapter VI of the Convention deals with matters arising from the war and the occupation, and the question of reparations is deferred. I must point out that under the 1953 Agreement on German external debts, claims arising from the war were


likewise deferred until the question of reparations had been settled.
But, under the Bonn Convention, in one matter the Federal German Government undertook to pay compensation. This was with regard to claims, not arising necessarily from the war, but from Nazi brutality. Indeed, not only was this type of claim under the Conventions not tied to the question of the war and of reparations, but such claims might well go back to the inception of the Nazi régime. The Federal German Government undertook to compensate claims presented by those who were persecuted for their political convictions, on account of their race or faith or ideology.
I must, therefore, make it clear that claims under the Conventions or the legislation pursuant to the Conventions were never intended to cover all those who suffered at the hands of the Germans during the war and there would, for example, be no ground under the Conventions or subsequent legislation for compensating Miss Lindell for injury when trying to escape from imprisonment. Such claims as would be covered would be those, for example, in connection with the operation of concentration camps or ghettoes or the Nurembourg laws. It is, therefore, only on this basis that there is any present obligation on the German Government to pay compensation to British subjects who endured hardships in concentration camps.
In pursuance of the undertakings in the Conventions, the Federal German Government introduced the legislation to which my hon. Friend has referred. This was thorough and detailed legislation, but it contained imperfections. In particular, there were residential qualifications which excluded many non-German subjects. The Federal Government at the same time expressed willingness to negotiate with the States concerned in the interests of their nationals.
The Federal Government amended the law in 1956 and representations were made by Her Majesty's Government on that occasion, but we were not successful in remedying the defects in the law. We therefore sought to organise amongst the Powers concerned a collective approach to the question of compensation for persecution. Unfortunately, however, this attempt did not succeed, because it appeared on examination that the prob-

lems arising in the case of the different States concerned were different in each case. The Federal Government again, at the end of 1958, offered bilateral negotiations, and some bilateral agreements were, in fact, concluded.
My hon. Friend has referred to the French Agreement, concluded in 1960. I must point out that Her Majesty's Government are, after all, not really very much behind the French Government in this respect. However, the case of British nationals is far more complicated than that of French nationals. France was an occupied country, and a large majority of the French cases, which were extremely numerous, arose on or directly in connection with French territory and are very much more easily ascertainable as to their details, whereas the cases with which we in Britain are particularly concerned are, naturally, much more difficult to ascertain, in that the facts alleged occurred in connection with residence under occupation in other countries, and so forth.
Our approach to the problem raised by my hon. Friend was to try to agree with the Federal German Government on figures regarding the number of British subjects for whom compensation should be provided. We had a considerable number of detailed discussions about the matter but, unfortunately, through, I think, no fault of either side, it proved impossible in the circumstances of the British case to arrive at any method of establishing the numbers in a reliable fashion.
It may be asked why we did not then invite the registration of applications. The answer is that there are many different categories of person who might think themselves entitled. It seemed unwise to raise hopes and put people to expense if we could not be sure that those in a given category were at any rate in a reasonable likelihood of obtaining compensation at the end of the negotiations. In the end, therefore, this approach was an unworkable one. This being so, we are now engaged on a rather different approach.
We are at present engaged in reopening the negotiations on a new basis. We wish, first, to seek to agree in detail the different categories of case which might be covered by an ultimate agreement and


also the types of suffering which are to be compensated. Having done this, and ascertained the area over which compensation could probably be obtained, we think it will then be possible—we hope expeditiously—to invite registration of applications for compensation within those categories. The applications for registration should then give us a reliable figure for the size of the problem. We should know approximately how many people would be compensated under an agreement arrived at and for what kind of suffering.
This, therefore, should give a firm basis for the negotiation of a lump sum settlement. It seems to us that this is a practical approach and one which, according to our experience so far, is best fitted to the British case. The German Federal Government are, meanwhile, engaged in amending the law again, and no doubt this will result in some improvements. But it is clear that even if the law is amended in a satisfactory manner, it will

still be necessary to pursue these negotiations with vigour and in considerable detail. My hon. Friend has stated that he understands that these are delicate negotiations. They touch on matters which give rise to strong emotions. We have a good understanding with the Federal German Government in all these problems and I believe that we both approach them in a reasonable spirit, desiring to come to just agreements. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand me if I say that I would not wish tonight to set forth in public the details of our negotiating position, particularly in view of the immense complexity of the negotiations. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend will be pleased when I assure him that the negotiations should be under way very soon indeed and that they will be pursued by Her Majesty's Government with vigour and expedition.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Five o'clock a.m.